Ohio shopper shoots teen dead outside mall for trying to steal newly bought Nike Air Jordans

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then please consider that this requires you to be omniscient. Are you? If not, you can not guarantee that you will never incidentally hit an innocent bystander - or an innocent suspect, for that matter. Nor can you guarantee me that your gun is not stolen or illegally resold and is used to kill me. So, don't ask me for impossible guarantees, please, unless you can give me some in return.

The graph above shows the number of weapons per 100 citizens versus the number of homicides by firearm.

If you still think there is another reason for the huge amount of murders by firearms than the amount of firearms in the population, you are beyond repair and logic - then you don't think functional, but have a belief, a Gun religion, so to say ...

Can you link us to the website where this chart was located? I'd like to research that on my own, if you please.

a reply to: Jamie1

Well, if "Darwin" shoots one of your kids, I guess you'll put that in its obituary too, won't you?

"Our son died. The stupid asshole left his gun at home and was simply shopping in our local mall UNARMED. Good thing that thug shot him, Darwin at its best. Good bye and good riddance, asshole kid! We'll shoot ourselves and our other kids too today as clearly our genes have defects. "

BTW: yes, we have strict weapon laws, low rates of murder and no, I don't feel threatened by my Government. They are stupid sometimes but that's merely a reflection of human nature.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

"Small Arms Survey 2007."

Couple issues: it doesn't account for people who have collections of guns. It doesn't account for people in countries other than the US who maintain government firearms at their home, because they don't "own" the weapon.

It's really just a survey that gives an estimate of the number of small arms in a country compared to its population.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then please consider that this requires you to be omniscient. Are you? If not, you can not guarantee that you will never incidentally hit an innocent bystander - or an innocent suspect, for that matter. Nor can you guarantee me that your gun is not stolen or illegally resold and is used to kill me. So, don't ask me for impossible guarantees, please, unless you can give me some in return.

The graph above shows the number of weapons per 100 citizens versus the number of homicides by firearm.

If you still think there is another reason for the huge amount of murders by firearms than the amount of firearms in the population, you are beyond repair and logic - then you don't think functional, but have a belief, a Gun religion, so to say ...

Why is it that Finland has almost 5 times as many guns per capita as Italy, and about half the murder rate?

Here, as long as we're talking about statistics, look how Thailand has 10x the deaths from cars as the U.S. does from guns:



Can you guarantee you won't kill me with you car? Can you guarantee you won't kill an innocent bystander? Can you guarantee your car won't be stolen and used in a crime?

Cars kill over 33,000 people EVERY DAY! And you're whining about me protecting myself from bad guys with guns?

If you can't see the huge amount of deaths caused by cars around the world DWARFS the deaths from guns, then you don't think functional. You're beyond repair. To you cars are a religion.

a reply to: Jamie1

Is that car accidents or people using cars as weapons?
Not the same thing and you it

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

If not, you can not guarantee that you will never incidentally hit an innocent bystander - or an innocent suspect, for that matter.

If someone is in my house illegally they are most certainly not an 'innocent bystander' or an 'innocent suspect' and unless my wife is standing behind them there is zero chance anyone other than them will be shot.

Nor can you guarantee me that your gun is not stolen or illegally resold and is used to kill me.

I would think the chances of someone getting in my biometric safe are rather slim but I cannot guarantee that no one would be able to tear it from the floor and drag it out of the house.

So instead of allowing me to defend my home and family I should rely on others which is not even remotely something I want to do. That may work for you but it will never work for me. When the chances of me being killed by a criminal are zero then your approach may start to make sense. Until then I will stick with my 'religion'; self-reliance.

a reply to: Jamie1

Ah, but you don't even know IF I drive a car, maybe indeed I don't - just because the dangers are too many!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's a cultural thing too, my friend. Dutch people are mostly very happy to entertain guests. If I find strangers in my house, I don't shoot them. I'll probably ask them how I may help them - if strangers enter my house, that's almost always because they lost their way, have had trouble with the car or want to visit the mill (you may recall I'm a mlller). We never lock the doors when at home, not even when we're asleep and I don't have a doorbell either. Sometimes I listen to music and have earphones on. So, it has happened that somebody entered my room without me hearing him come. We live in 'nowhere', centre ville. So, if people bother to make that long, long walk to get to us, I'll welcome them, don't shoot at them (with my imaginary gun).

We do agree though that IFF you have to have a gun, the best place for it is in a locked biometric safe, solidly locked to the floor

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Glad to oblige, ma'am

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Glad to oblige, ma'am

Thank you kindly. Now to translate. Time to fire up the googles!

originally posted by: Jamie1
Why is it that Finland has almost 5 times as many guns per capita as Italy, and about half the murder rate?

I'm not sure. I think it's because 'guns' is a very broad concept and Finland is a very rural area in which many people still hunt - not for sport, but out of necessity. So, they have a gun, but not to defend themselves but to shoot their dinner.

Here, as long as we're talking about statistics, look how Thailand has 10x the deaths from cars as the U.S. does from guns:

Actually, we have roughly 20 murder cases in our Country each year and roughly 600 people die as the result of a car accident. So, yes, driving a car is VERY dangerous.

Should we ban cars? Well, they are mostly (very) useful and aren't build to kill. Actually, many car manufacturers make cars as safe as they can (e.g. Volvo), not only for the driver and passengers, but also for those that might get hit by a car. And yes, if we'd value life more, we'd ensure that cars were even more safe. There is a lot of interesting work being done on that, e.g. the self-driving car.

But .. should we loosen our strict weapon laws because cars are unsafe? Oh, come on, what nonsense, how would THAT help to a) make cars safer and b) maintain our very low murder rate?

Can you guarantee you won't kill me with you car? Can you guarantee you won't kill an innocent bystander? Can you guarantee your car won't be stolen and used in a crime?

No, I can't. But my car is indeed a safe car, I have payed a lot more for it because I WANTED it to be a safe car. I don't speed. I don't drink-drive. And my car, most importantly, was not build to kill. It's not it's intended use. But your gun IS build to kill. So, you're comparing apples with pears.

Cars kill over 33,000 people EVERY DAY! And you're whining about me protecting myself from bad guys with guns?

How many of these "bad guys" did you meet during your life? And did the shooter help making them less bad? Did the gun ever safe your life?

BTW: yes, to many people cars are a religion too.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
When the chances of me being killed by a criminal are zero then your approach may start to make sense.

The likelihood that you will shoot yourself or a member of your family with a gun is greater than the likelihood of your saving them from a criminal.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

How did this become a gun debate? The whole thing is about a CRIMINAL that got shot while committing a CRIME.

a reply to: Skid Mark

And all crimes need to be met with death right?

originally posted by: Skid Mark
How did this become a gun debate? The whole thing is about a CRIMINAL that got shot while committing a CRIME.

Allegedly.

We'll never know. Someone decided to kill the accused.

a reply to: Skid Mark

The two are not only related, but so intertwined you can't discuss the one without the other. Read the title of this thread: "Ohio shopper shoots teen dead outside mall for trying to steal newly bought Nike Air Jordans". Now, with what did the shopper shoot? Yup, with a gun. How did the teen end up? Dead. Why was he killed? Because both he and the shopper had a gun. So, how on earth can you NOT discuss guns with a post like this?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Skid Mark

And all crimes need to be met with death right?

If in the commission of your crime you threaten someone with a deadly weapon, and your victim ALSO has a deadly weapon, it's not outside the realm of possibility that one of you will end up dead.

So, why blame the victim in this case who happened to be the one alive? Why not blame the criminal who brought his own deadly weapon to the altercation in the first place? If only that criminal hadn't brought a gun with him, he'd still alive.

But no, anytime some armed thug ends up dead, people start blaming the victim.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: Skid Mark
How did this become a gun debate? The whole thing is about a CRIMINAL that got shot while committing a CRIME.

Allegedly.

We'll never know. Someone decided to kill the accused.

Allegedly. The investigation isn't complete so far as I've heard.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
If only that criminal hadn't brought a gun with him, he'd still alive.

Unless person being robbed decided to shoot a thief because they felt threatened.

If neither of them brought a gun, no one would have been shot.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: Skid Mark
How did this become a gun debate? The whole thing is about a CRIMINAL that got shot while committing a CRIME.

Allegedly.

We'll never know. Someone decided to kill the accused.

Allegedly. The investigation isn't complete so far as I've heard.

No the homicide isn't alleged, the motivations are.