Time to take the gun from the American public!

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by DAVID64

 

That's a very wrong-headed argument. 99% of traffic related deaths are accidents. Every year though thousands and thousands are murdered with guns.

Big difference.

Really?

Are the dead any less so because it was an "accident"?

Do you seriously think they care more that they are dead if it wasn't?

Originally posted by Wertdagf

Then your responsible for every child that finds a gun and shoots himself or others.....

as if these hillbilly idiots need more guns.

Okay, now you done ticked me off. Are stereotypes any less offensive for not relating to race?

Yeah, I live out in the country - waaay out in the country on a dirt road. Yeah, I have 5 dogs, some chickens and ducks, 2 cats, several guns including a working muzzle-loader, and my husband likes to "mark his territory" in the front yard.

I also have a 4 year college degree in computer science (GPA 3.98, graduated summa cum laude), a 166 IQ, used to be a certified computer technician, and I'll take you on intellectually any day.

And when you're done calling people you don't even know idiots, you might want to brush up on your grammar/spelling. "Your" is the possessive form denoting ownership; you meant "you are" which is a contraction and is spelled "you're."

By the way, I hope when the SHTF or EOTWAWKI rolls around, you're still alive to starve to death because you can't feed yourself if there isn't a grocery store or burger joint handy.

And to address your point now that I've blown off a little steam, only ONE person is ever responsible for a child finding a gun and using it inappropriately - the person who left the loaded gun where a child who has not been taught about guns could find it.

reply to post by nenothtu


Again, this argument is asinine.

Transport is a necessity. Guns, as have been shown in dozens of democracies, are not necessary.

If guns were actually necessary and used as tools, and self-defence against someone else with a gun is not a meaningful use, as both shouldn't exist in the first place, and if all gun deaths were accidents, then maybe there'd be a comparison, but as it stands there is no comparison.

An elderly guy who has a heart attack and crashes the car he was driving into a tree isn't a reasonable argument for banning cars; a kid getting one of his dad collection of guns and shooting up a school is a argument for controlling guns more tightly.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Again, this argument is asinine.

Transport is a necessity. Guns, as have been shown in dozens of democracies, are not necessary.

If guns were actually necessary and used as tools, and self-defence against someone else with a gun is not a meaningful use, as both shouldn't exist in the first place, and if all gun deaths were accidents, then maybe there'd be a comparison, but as it stands there is no comparison.

An elderly guy who has a heart attack and crashes the car he was driving into a tree isn't a reasonable argument for banning cars; a kid getting one of his dad collection of guns and shooting up a school is a argument for controlling guns more tightly.

Respectfully, I'd like to see your list of democracies which have no guns and then the proof you speak of regarding guns not needed for any reason.

You obviously are an anti-gun person and no one makes you own a gun, and using the same reasoning, you have no right to restrict my rights.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by hhott

 

I don't ignore the point, but I do think it's GREATLY overstated and is rendered essentially useless when considered against the thousands killed by guns in the US.

Put it like this, if you need a gun to protect yourself from a gun then the problem is, on some level, a gun. Remove the problem.

The gun will never get removed from the equation because it is big business. Assuming they were though, people would use knives, baseball bats, crossbows, ANYTHING TO HARM the enemy. Guns maybe the easiest way to kill someone you don't like but that is about it.

Finally, and this is very important, do you want a society like England, where there are thousands of cameras watching over the population? Europeans are catching on to this DISEASE FAST and it is becoming irritating...much like facebook.

I don't want to be protected. I want to be REPRESENTED! And I am a progressive which goes to show blind faith in party lines is as retarded as believing in santa claus coming down your roof on christmas eve. I am serious here.

molṑn labé

Enough said

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon


All of Europe. Japan.

All statistics show these places have strong democracies, happy populations, good education systems, etc, oh and strong gun control.

reply to post by hhott


Don't sweat it.

Elitists of that caliber are far, far beneath us mere hillbillies.

Damn shame they can't hold their end of a discussion, though, without flinging spittle and crud.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

 

All of Europe. Japan.

All statistics show these places have strong democracies, happy populations, good education systems, etc, oh and strong gun control.

And with a million SPY CAMERAS PEEPING into every road, building, crevice, room, etc.

Seriously you should take a trip to london to see for yourself. Enough said!

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

They died because of a gun, not a ban on a gun.

Horse crap! They died because criminals don't give a damn about laws. Those two unfortunate souls did, and left their best source of protection at home.

You can trust your gut if you want, but the statistics show that the more lax the gun control laws the more gun related deaths their are.

Your problem is that you are so narrow minded that you only focus on "gun related deaths", when, in fact, your focus should be on "intentional homicides" and "violent crimes". There are no stats that show how many violent crimes are prevented by handguns, but the following indicates that they are, indeed, effective deterrents. I used the source that you supplied, and compared the averages of violent crimes of two categories of US States mentioned in that source.

1) The Ten States with the Strongest Gun Laws:

Average rate of Violent Crime=393.3
Average rate of Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter=5.12
Average rate of Forcible Rape=21.93
Average rate of Robbery=128.08
Average rate of Aggravated Assault=239.08

2) The Ten States with the Weakest Gun Laws:

Average rate of Violent Crime=295.59
Average rate of Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter=3.75
Average rate of Forcible Rape=33.38
Average rate of Robbery=53.44
Average rate of Aggravated Assault=205.03

Furthermore, how do you explain the high intentional homicide rates of Washington DC (21.9) and Chicago (15.2) if you feel handgun bans are so effective?

If more firearms equal more intentional homicides, as you so persistently claim, why do the numbers not support your side of the argument?

And places like Europe and that have strict gun control have endlessly fewer gun related deaths.

Not according to the following:


Source of those 2 Tables
I find it quite interesting that the United States is listed so far down on the second table, considering US citizens have more firearms than anyone else.

But sure yeah, all the people killed by guns would be alive if there were more guns around... very sound logic...

The vast majority of those killed by guns would still be alive if the criminals that killed them weren't so intent on murder. Removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens will do absolutely nothing to curb that criminal intent. Most likely that intent would only be encouraged.

The intentional homicide rate in the United States for 1993 was 9.5. That rate has consistantly went down, even though more and more handguns were purchased by law abiding citizens. By 2010 the intentional homicide rate in the US was down to 4.8. This downward trend in intentional homicide, along with the upward trend in handgun possession, most certainly indicates that more firearms in legal hands ACTUALLY DOES CURB CRIMINAL INTENT.

Your logic, if one would call it that, is only based on fantasy!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by Wertdagf

Then your responsible for every child that finds a gun and shoots himself or others

If you insist... but only if I can hold you responsible for ALL murders in areas with handgun bans.

Do we have an agreement?

as if these hillbilly idiots need more guns.

That statement shows you're a bigot, and indicates that, most likely, you live in the north.

How did I do?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by hhott

Originally posted by hhott

Originally posted by Wertdagf

Then your responsible for every child that finds a gun and shoots himself or others.....

as if these hillbilly idiots need more guns.

Okay, now you done ticked me off. Are stereotypes any less offensive for not relating to race?

Yeah, I live out in the country - waaay out in the country on a dirt road. Yeah, I have 5 dogs, some chickens and ducks, 2 cats, several guns including a working muzzle-loader, and my husband likes to "mark his territory" in the front yard.

I also have a 4 year college degree in computer science (GPA 3.98, graduated summa cum laude), a 166 IQ, used to be a certified computer technician, and I'll take you on intellectually any day.

And when you're done calling people you don't even know idiots, you might want to brush up on your grammar/spelling. "Your" is the possessive form denoting ownership; you meant "you are" which is a contraction and is spelled "you're."

By the way, I hope when the SHTF or EOTWAWKI rolls around, you're still alive to starve to death because you can't feed yourself if there isn't a grocery store or burger joint handy.

And to address your point now that I've blown off a little steam, only ONE person is ever responsible for a child finding a gun and using it inappropriately - the person who left the loaded gun where a child who has not been taught about guns could find it.

Hillbillies rule!

I loved your post!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


Sorry, if that's the case Milt, why aren't criminals using guns to the same degree anywhere but the US (and places like Africa)? Hmmmm?

Because they aren't.

On top of all of that, if I lock one hundred people in a room, with no guns, how many of them will die of gun related injuries.... what if I lock one hundred people and one hundred guns in a room? Take away all the guns, no gun related deaths. Take away all the hand guns and the number of gun related deaths falls by about 85%.

It's not a guess, we can see the figure in other places to prove it's true.

You know, I find it funny I was discussing this just earlier today with about 12 prison guards. Couple local sherrifs too. Not one of them said they would ever even bother trying to confiscate arms in the US. They all know it cant and SHOULDNT be done. Your guns are safe.....


Its the DRONES you need to be worried about....

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

Sorry, if that's the case Milt, why aren't criminals using guns to the same degree anywhere but the US (and places like Africa)? Hmmmm?

Because they aren't.

These are actually worse, and they aren't anything like Africa:
Colombia's is 51.77
El Salvador's is 50.36
Jamaica's is 47.44
Honduras' is 46.70
Guatemala's is 38.52
Thailand's is 33.00
Brazil's is 10.58
Estonia's is 8.07
Panama's is 12.92
Mexico's is 9.88
Philippines' is 9.46
Paraguay's is 7.35
Nicaragua's is 7.14
Northern Ireland's is 5.24
Source
Estonia and Northern Ireland are even members of the European Union.
Hmmmm! Go figure... I reckon you are wrong AGAIN! That's certainly no surprise though.

On top of all of that, if I lock one hundred people in a room, with no guns, how many of them will die of gun related injuries....

Before you get to that point, you need to disarm them. They've already got lots of guns. How do you intend to do that without your own firearm?

what if I lock one hundred people and one hundred guns in a room?

If their are no criminals in that room, you most likely won't have any deaths, unless someone dies of suffocation. That would be the most likely cause of death in that situation.

Take away all the guns, no gun related deaths. Take away all the hand guns and the number of gun related deaths falls by about 85%.

I agree, but once again we are back to disarming them. Let's say that laws do, indeed, remove firearms from the law abiding public... How do you intend to take them away from the criminals?

If you need my help with that, please let me know soon. I will need to purchase a pretty potent firearm first. I'M NOT STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY THAT WITHOUT A FIREARM OF MY OWN. THAT WOULD BE SUICIDE!

It's not a guess, we can see the figure in other places to prove it's true.

Yes it is! You've shown no such "figure". Why?

Now that I've once again beaten you at your silly little games, how about answering the questions from my previous post:

Furthermore, how do you explain the high intentional homicide rates of Washington DC (21.9) and Chicago (15.2) if you feel handgun bans are so effective?

If more firearms equal more intentional homicides, as you so persistently claim, why do the numbers not support your side of the argument?

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by BenReclused

 

Sorry, if that's the case Milt, why aren't criminals using guns to the same degree anywhere but the US (and places like Africa)? Hmmmm?

Because they aren't.

On top of all of that, if I lock one hundred people in a room, with no guns, how many of them will die of gun related injuries.... what if I lock one hundred people and one hundred guns in a room? Take away all the guns, no gun related deaths. Take away all the hand guns and the number of gun related deaths falls by about 85%.

It's not a guess, we can see the figure in other places to prove it's true.

It must have been stated a hundred or maybe a thousand times already that criminals always have knives or guns regardless if knives or guns are allowed. Do you acknowledge this, yes or no?

Let me put it this way: If you live in some big city in the usa, and in one of the poorer districts, would you choose to have no weapon? I have visited washington dc, philadelphia, new york city, boston since I lived in new jersey most of my life. Not particulary safe unless you hang out with the right people at the right time at the right place.

Wandering in the wrong area CAN get you KILLED FAST!

reply to post by BenReclused


Sigh, Milt, why oh why must you be such a liar?

You bring up DC, for instance, as if that proves hand guns bans aren't effective, when it actually shows that a state by state or region by region approach won't work for this problem, only a national ban.

You also repeatedly make the argument that, it's too late to ban guns, as everyone has them. That is NOT actually a legitimate argument against the reality that without guns, there'd be no gun violence.

You also say that Africa, a place with a #load of guns, has a very high murder rate, much higher than that in the US. Funny how all those guns aren't keeping them safe from all of those guns... seems like, considering all the gun nut arguments that more guns = less gun related crime africa would be the safest place on earth.

And yet.

But Milt, why would I expect anything other than lies from you?

Some of your classics:

- America's murder rate is lower than Sweden's
- NYC is effectively gun free

And on and on...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I have lived in Boston, NYC, Little Rock (when it was as dangerous as anywhere in the US), London and now Dublin. I have never, nor will I ever own a gun. And of course, stats say that places like NYC are actually safer than many much smaller cities, per capita.

I have ALSO seen two people shot, seen a race riot, been pistol whipped (by a coked up white guy - random violence) and have seen many a gun pulled on many a person... and I still will NEVER own a gun. Ever.

Where I live now, the populous is disarmed, as are the cops. If a cop pulls you over, they do NOT have a gun. 99% of crime does NOT feature a gun and the murder rate here is much lower than in the US. Yeah, people still commit crimes and yeah, violence in society is inevitable, but.. BUT... the chances of being shot in Ireland or in the UK are essentially negligible.

Imagine that.

Imagine cops not shooting people accidentally, or kids not shooting up schools, co-workers not shooting up offices... that's Europe. No hand guns, and safer, and still very democratic.... more so than many places in the US.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Once again it come down to this-Dont like guns? Dont buy one. I'm all for people having their beliefs about things but dont shove your views down others throats.
This is America, Land of the FREE. Free to choose what we want for ourselves. We vote, we decide. Not some dictator or "queen".
It always sounds like sour grapes to me when countries that cant have guns complain about countries that do. You dont have to come to our country, you dont have to have a gun. Its that simple. But understand that the people here that dont have guns, do so by CHOICE. Not because they are told what they can and cant own