EPTThere definitely seems to be a lot of unreliable witnesses in the case. I wonder if Corey's prosecution is responsible.
Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 71
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
There definitely seems to be a lot of unreliable witnesses in the case. I wonder if Corey's prosecution is responsible. | ||
|
appletree
Denmark109 Posts
On July 18 2012 01:06 RCMDVA wrote: Pick the state with the most liberal gun laws : A) Texas B) Alaska C) Vermont If you don't know the answer, then you really miss the big picture about guns & the US. The reason we ask questions is because we don't get, and understand why, there's such a huge need for owning a gun. - So it's better to defend yourself with a gun, when being attacked by a robber with a gun, then defending yourself, by physical means, against a robber with no gun, whether or not you're literally outnumbered, or physically outmatched ? I'd say i've rather be robbed and get a beating, than shooting someone, or winding up in a firefight, even if it is selfdefence. I can gurantee you, that shooting someone takes much more of a toll on you, than getting beaten, and robbed. This is my point of view, and personal experience. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
They have 3 gun laws (aside from the Federal ones) Don't carry in a school. Don't carry in a school bus. Can't sell a gun to someone under 16 unless they have their parents permission. Universial concealed/open carry. You can do it whenever/whereever you want. No permits at all. Alaska is close, and Texas has some horrible CC laws they are still dealing with. And I still think you can't open carry in Texas. | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
On July 18 2012 01:17 Lightwip wrote: Yeah. With my brilliant foreigner insight, I can tell you that you really should just become a client state of Russia because it's the right thing to do. Why are you mixing Russia in this discussion ? Hell, we are that close to fostering an US base (part of the missile shield) Now seriously, if you have something really good to add, please do so, just refrain yourself from cheap trolling. | ||
|
Portlandian
Belgium153 Posts
On July 18 2012 01:23 appletree wrote: The reason we ask questions is because we don't get, and understand why, there's such a huge need for owning a gun. - So it's better to defend yourself with a gun, when being attacked by a robber with a gun, then defending yourself, by physical means, against a robber with no gun, whether or not you're literally outnumbered, or physically outmatched ? I'd say i've rather be robbed and get a beating, than shooting someone, or winding up in a firefight, even if it is selfdefence. I can gurantee you, that shooting someone takes much more of a toll on you, than getting beaten, and robbed. This is my point of view, and personal experience. You would rather be beaten to death than have a weapon you could use to defend yourself? I suppose you think that sounds noble, but to me it just seems childishly naive. And what about women and the elderly? I suppose you think they deserve whatever happens to them at the hands of young male criminals? | ||
|
Portlandian
Belgium153 Posts
On July 17 2012 23:58 HomeWorld wrote: It may sound silly, but I'm quite fond of the current policy regarding firearms in my country. Not many ppl can wear firearms without a good reason and it shows, there are close to none incidents so far. Maybe US should get over the "wild wild west era" and start banning firearms. Keep in mind, main weapons use is for killing not for defending .. :S Gun control doesn't work, unless your goal is to disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them at the mercy of criminals or government. When you blame guns you are misidentifying the source of the problem. Crime is committed by humans, not firearms. In the absence of firearms crime increases. This is a logical result. When you disarm their victims criminals become emboldened. I looked up some statistics for Romania and it is not as rosy as you seem to think. Romania had a murder rate of 7 per 100,000 in 2000. http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/RO/crime.html The demographics of Romania are almost entirely white European. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Romania When you check American homicide statistics by race, you discover that white Americans had a peak murder rate of 6.4 in 1980, but it was down to 3.5 in 2000 where it has remained. So Romanian whites are about 2x more likely to commit murder than American whites, despite Americans presumably having more access to firearms. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Ak82.png) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On July 18 2012 01:50 Portlandian wrote: Gun control doesn't work, unless your goal is to disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them at the mercy of criminals or government. When you blame guns you are misidentifying the source of the problem. Crime is committed by humans, not firearms. In the absence of firearms crime increases. This is a logical result. When you disarm their victims criminals become emboldened. I looked up some statistics for Romania and it is not as rosy as you seem to think. Romania had a murder rate of 7 per 100,000 in 2000. http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/RO/crime.html The demographics of Romania are almost entirely white European. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Romania When you check American homicide statistics by race, you discover that white Americans had a peak murder rate of 6.4 in 1980, but it was down to 3.5 in 2000 where it has remained. So Romanian whites are about 2x more likely to commit murder than American whites, despite Americans presumably having more access to firearms. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Why are you bringing race into this? | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
On July 18 2012 01:50 Portlandian wrote: Gun control doesn't work, unless your goal is to disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them at the mercy of criminals or government. When you blame guns you are misidentifying the source of the problem. Crime is committed by humans, not firearms. In the absence of firearms crime increases. This is a logical result. When you disarm their victims criminals become emboldened. I looked up some statistics for Romania and it is not as rosy as you seem to think. Romania had a murder rate of 7 per 100,000 in 2000. http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/RO/crime.html The demographics of Romania are almost entirely white European. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Romania When you check American homicide statistics by race, you discover that white Americans had a peak murder rate of 6.4 in 1980, but it was down to 3.5 in 2000 where it has remained. So Romanian whites are about 2x more likely to commit murder than American whites, despite Americans presumably having more access to firearms. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm You got to be freaking joking  The romanian whites ? wtf are you talking about dude, we do not have such kind of discrimination. Also, care to show us how many murders were caused by firearms ?! (I think you can use your toes to count them) | ||
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
On July 18 2012 01:23 appletree wrote: The reason we ask questions is because we don't get, and understand why, there's such a huge need for owning a gun. - So it's better to defend yourself with a gun, when being attacked by a robber with a gun, then defending yourself, by physical means, against a robber with no gun, whether or not you're literally outnumbered, or physically outmatched ? I'd say i've rather be robbed and get a beating, than shooting someone, or winding up in a firefight, even if it is selfdefence. I can gurantee you, that shooting someone takes much more of a toll on you, than getting beaten, and robbed. This is my point of view, and personal experience. by banning guns you make it so that only criminals carry them think about that for a second - the robber is the criminal in your example edit - sorry for going off topic, not going to do so anymore in the thread, promise! | ||
|
Portlandian
Belgium153 Posts
When drawing comparisons between the two countries you need to account for demographic differences. On July 18 2012 01:58 HomeWorld wrote: You got to be freaking joking The romanian whites ? wtf are you talking about dude, we do not have such kind of discrimination. Also, care to show us how many murders were caused by firearms ?! (I think you can use your toes to count them) Romania is almost entirely white and has a quite high murder rate for a white country. This reflects possible problems with your government policies, for example gun control. I don't think the people killed in Romania are too grateful they were killed by some means other than a firearm. Stabbing or beating deaths are a lot more horrific. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On July 18 2012 02:15 Portlandian wrote: When drawing comparisons between the two countries you need to account for demographic differences. Romania is almost entirely white and has a quite high murder rate for a white country. This reflects possible problems with your government policies, for example gun control. I don't think the people killed in Romania are too grateful they were killed by some means other than a firearm. Stabbing or beating deaths are a lot more horrific. You mean that they look worse on television. In practice, most people don't want to be killed at all, and being shot is probably just as painful as anything else. | ||
|
Portlandian
Belgium153 Posts
On July 18 2012 02:18 Praetorial wrote: You mean that they look worse on television. In practice, most people don't want to be killed at all, and being shot is probably just as painful as anything else. Don't get me wrong. I think it is silly to bother comparing weapons used in murders because the problem is the murder not the means. I just don't get why someone would be proud to have fewer gun deaths and more stabbings or beating deaths. They seem like horrific ways to die and no consolation at all to the victim. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
| ||
|
50bani
Romania480 Posts
On July 18 2012 01:58 HomeWorld wrote: You got to be freaking joking The romanian whites ? wtf are you talking about dude, we do not have such kind of discrimination. Also, care to show us how many murders were caused by firearms ?! (I think you can use your toes to count them) Quick points Many countries have high gun ownership and lower, in fact much lower murder rates compared to the US. It is hard to find corelations between gun ownership and murder rates. Within the US, you can compare the states and I think you can not find a negative corelation between gun control laws and murder rates. The USA has a very high crime rate for a developed country, that's it. Guns have nothing to do with it | ||
|
50bani
Romania480 Posts
On July 18 2012 02:37 GMarshal wrote: This is a reminder that this is not a thread about gun control. Please stick to the specific case being discussed. Apparently it is a relevant discussion, and since we are at it, if guns were not involved in this incident, Travyon Martin would almost certainly not have died. If people feel it is relevant to the subject, why should they not bring it into the discussion? | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On July 18 2012 02:50 50bani wrote: Apparently it is a relevant discussion, and since we are at it, if guns were not involved in this incident, Travyon Martin would almost certainly not have died. If people feel it is relevant to the subject, why should they not bring it into the discussion? I can think of two reasons. First, on TL, gun control debates have a nasty tendency to get ugly very quickly, and it could easily ruin this thread that's not REALLY about guns. Second, gun control debates never go anywhere. Both sides point to anecdotal evidence or horribly biased statistics, and no progress is ever made. To the people saying they'd rather be beaten and robbed than have to shoot someone; how do you know they will only take your money, and not your life as well? If you're dead, you can't pick them out of a police line-up, so they may actually WANT to kill you. Second, even if they don't intend to kill you, how do you know the beating will end before you're mortally wounded? Even if they don't kill you, how do you know you won't be permanently disfigured or disabled? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On July 18 2012 03:03 Millitron wrote: I can think of two reasons. First, on TL, gun control debates have a nasty tendency to get ugly very quickly, and it could easily ruin this thread that's not REALLY about guns. Second, gun control debates never go anywhere. Both sides point to anecdotal evidence or horribly biased statistics, and no progress is ever made. To the people saying they'd rather be beaten and robbed than have to shoot someone; how do you know they will only take your money, and not your life as well? If you're dead, you can't pick them out of a police line-up, so they may actually WANT to kill you. Second, even if they don't intend to kill you, how do you know the beating will end before you're mortally wounded? Even if they don't kill you, how do you know you won't be permanently disfigured or disabled? That you can point out the obvious issues in having a gun control debate and then commit those very grievances yourself speaks volumes. Hypotheticals are not helpful. More to the point, the idiosyncrasies of Florida's laws make these general debates even more useless. | ||
|
Forgottenfrog
United States1268 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Enzymatic
Canada1301 Posts
On July 18 2012 02:50 50bani wrote: Apparently it is a relevant discussion, and since we are at it, if guns were not involved in this incident, Travyon Martin would almost certainly not have died. If people feel it is relevant to the subject, why should they not bring it into the discussion? You directly contradicted yourself in your second post in regards to what you said in your first post. In your first post, you state that guns have nothing to do with murder rate, and basically call them irrelevant. In your second post you talk about how guns are relevant. You're all over the place. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
The fact of the matter is guns aren't body-armor. They don't protect people in their everyday lives. Owning a gun will not prevent you from being shot when someone points one at you and pulls the trigger -- in fact, one might say it only increases the possibility. We manufacture a lot of guns, due to their legitimacy in this country. And the results continue to speak for themselves. Zimmerman was a legal gun-owner. Aren't we glad? But surely, he was the worst case scenario. It's not like legally-owned firearms are taking innocent lives on a regular basis. Let's keep the gun industry robust and healthy, because the criminals aren't benefiting from that in the slightest. And please, please, lets not make each other uncomfortable by having to talk about it. Pfffffffffffffffffffft. | ||
| ||
, now seriously, things designed to kill peoples should be outright banned, I hope you agree with me.
