Gun Control means hitting your target.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by SpearMint

 

If someone is really intent on doing you harm, it will get done. I don't think your corpse will care which tool killed it. I'm all for debate, we've established that you're scared of guns, I simply want to know why? What scares you?

When have I said I'm scared of guns? I think guns increase homicides, and they do. Please read my post on the 1st page about this.

You didn't say you were scarred of guns, but the context of your posts told me. It's called reading between the lines. I'd like to find out why you're so against firearms.

Well you're wrong. I've said multiple times now, guns increase homicide, there's your answer. It seems you're ignoring the statistics I brought up in hope of a logical debate and instead trying to make yourself superior on a personal level. I'm not scared of guns, guns are made with the sole purpose of killing and that's what they do. It's clear that they increase homicide.

I'll make it simple for you, Explain how MY firearms increase crime.

We're not talking about YOUR firearms, we're talking about firearms in general. You cannot look at certain people and come to a conclusion, you need to look at the population as a whole. I don't know you, and I don't know if you have the potential to murder someone, however from previous posts I assume you wouldn't hesitate to kill someone if you saw fit. However people do kill people, and if they have access to guns it's much easier and they're more likely to actually do it, and maybe even kill multiple people while they're at it. Let's look at the various cases where kids have shot up a school for various reasons, usually bullying. Where do they get their guns? From others that may have them for a non-criminal reason such as yourself.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by bjax9er
reply to post by SpearMint

 

did the gun grow a finger, and pull the trigger?

No, the person with a gun pulled the trigger. Like I just said, guns give the ability to kill, of course the person is responsible, but the gun is tool enabling them to do so.

guns can't give the ability to do anything, for they are inanimate objects.

people however do have the ability to kill.

gun
screwdriver
knife
box cutter
poison
car
truck
electricity
sword
hammer
baseball bat
in your case a cricket stick. what do you call that stick??
baseball
crossbow
bow and arrow

Originally posted by Darce

Originally posted by SpearMint
guns are made with the sole purpose of killing and that's what they do.

Oh, so you have no idea what you are talking about. Okay.

edit on 21/7/12 by Darce because: (no reason given)

Care to explain? Just that statement alone tells me you don't know what you're talking about.

Guns are made to kill, what you do with them is up to you, but that's the only reasons guns are designed and produced for. Excluding sport of course, but that's not what we're talking about.

I have noticed in my own interactions that the people who are most concerned about private firearm ownership tend to have a confidence issue and are of the mindset that should they have access to a firearm it would only put them at risk, and others, due to their own sheer incompetence.

Originally posted by bjax9er

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by bjax9er
reply to post by SpearMint

 

did the gun grow a finger, and pull the trigger?

No, the person with a gun pulled the trigger. Like I just said, guns give the ability to kill, of course the person is responsible, but the gun is tool enabling them to do so.

guns can't give the ability to do anything, for they are inanimate objects.

people however do have the ability to kill.

gun
screwdriver
knife
box cutter
poison
car
truck
electricity
sword
hammer
baseball bat
in your case a cricket stick. what do you call that stick??
baseball
crossbow
bow and arrow

Oh for god's sake, you're not getting it.

I KNOW guns don't make people kill people, they allow them to.

It's much easier to kill multiple people at a time with a gun than it is with any other handheld weapon.

All you have to do is look at the homicide rate of guns vs all those things you listed.

reply to post by SpearMint


Here in Canada the only legal purpose for a civilian to use a firearm is for sport. So what are you talking about?

reply to post by SpearMint


It's much eaasier to kill people with a gun than it is a bomb?

reply to post by Darce


Canada counts hunting for food as sport?

oh i do get it.

i think i could kill quite a few people with this 80,000 pound missile (truck) i drive everyday.

should we ban all of those inanimate objects i listed?

please answer:
what do you call the cricket stick? i really want to know. seriously.

I'll post these numbers again since they were ignored...

I'm going to use England & Wales as an example, but lots of other countries would work.

Overall Homicide rate per 100k people:

England & Wales - 1.45
USA - 4.55

So here we can see that homicide is much higher in the US, but this doesn't tell us much, so moving on.

Non-firearm Homicides per 100k people:

England & Wales - 1.33
USA - 1.58

Not that much difference, there's around the same amount of non-gun related murders in the USA as there are in England & Wales, let's move on.

Firearm Homicides per 100k people:

England & Wales - 0.12
USA - 2.97

And there we are, MUCH higher. Guns cause more homicides, what more proof do you need? 8% of homicides are gun related in England & Wales, 65% are gun related in the USA. Guns enable people to kill, and that's what they're used for. The proof is RIGHT THERE.

reply to post by TKDRL


Hunting is a sport, but I believe there are permits for aboriginals to hunt without a license on the reserves.

Of course I forgot collectors. Nothing remotely related to shooting human beings though, which is what this guy/gal seems to think all guns are meant for.

reply to post by Darce


Sorry, I was just being an ass lol. Us Canadians are also allowed to use our guns to defend ourselves though. That is certainly not sport, at least not for the sane people.

reply to post by SpearMint


I understand the point you're trying to make, now I'll show you why its faulted.
In order to prove that firearms increase crime, You'd have to measure crime in a group, then give them firearms and measure the crimes in that same group. The problem is all other factors would have to be a constant between the two measurements. There would have to be no change in Emotional/Psychological stability, socio-economic status, drug/alcohol use. And that's impossible to measure.

Places that make the populace surrender their guns usually have spikes in gun crime immediately afterward. After the 1997 firearms act in the UK, gun crime went up.

Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."

Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted."

England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.

In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

Originally posted by bjax9er
oh i do get it.

i think i could kill quite a few people with this 80,000 pound missile (truck) i drive everyday.

should we ban all of those inanimate objects i listed?

please answer:
what do you call the cricket stick? i really want to know. seriously.

How many people have access to missile truck...? Please use realistic examples.

It's called a cricket bat. Not sure why you're talking about it like it's some weird sport Australia plays, I just want to point out that the rest of the world plays cricket and have international teams, baseball is just an American thing. I'm culturally aware enough to know what a baseball bat is called though, never watched or played it in my life. A bit off topic though.

reply to post by SpearMint

I KNOW guns don't make people kill people, they allow them to.

It's much easier to kill multiple people at a time with a gun than it is with any other handheld weapon.

i'm thinking you might want to compare that to automobile fatalities and then come back with a reasonable argument, IF there is one.

plenty more ppl have their hands on steering wheels, much more often, then they ever fondle or fire a gun.

reply to post by SpearMint



Correlation does not imply causation. Why are you not understanding that social factors come into play? Yes, you are less likely to be murdered by a gun in the UK, but you are less likely to be murdered in general. Hmm, I wonder why? Must be the guns.

reply to post by SpearMint


He was calling his truck a missle...he doesn't actually have a "Missle Truck" At the end of the day we're going in circles, I've asked you to state to me in plain english why you feel firearms increase homicide, you can't. This should prove your arguement invalid.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189

Link

According to you, this should be impossible.....please explain.

reply to post by TKDRL


"Better tried by 12 than carried by 6" of course, but if you do survive you'll never see your guns again unfortunately. You'll be so tied up in the legal system it's almost not worth it to use a gun. They expect us to just beg for mercy.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by SpearMint

 

I understand the point you're trying to make, now I'll show you why its faulted.
In order to prove that firearms increase crime, You'd have to measure crime in a group, then give them firearms and measure the crimes in that same group. The problem is all other factors would have to be a constant between the two measurements. There would have to be no change in Emotional/Psychological stability, socio-economic status, drug/alcohol use. And that's impossible to measure.

Places that make the populace surrender their guns usually have spikes in gun crime immediately afterward. After the 1997 firearms act in the UK, gun crime went up.

Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."

Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted."

England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.

In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

But then you need to apply those same conditions to your examples, the world seems to be getting more violent and crime is generally on the rise. Maybe those increased rates would be the same or higher if gun laws didn't change, people don't just carry guns around on them and I can't really see people owning guns helping a lot of those statistics, carrying some other form of self defence like pepper spray, maybe a taser etc might, I don't know. Thank you for making a reasoned argument and considering what I had to say, no one else is.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by bjax9er
oh i do get it.

i think i could kill quite a few people with this 80,000 pound missile (truck) i drive everyday.

should we ban all of those inanimate objects i listed?

please answer:
what do you call the cricket stick? i really want to know. seriously.

How many people have access to missile truck...? Please use realistic examples.

It's called a cricket bat. Not sure why you're talking about it like it's some weird sport Australia plays, I just want to point out that the rest of the world plays cricket and have international teams, baseball is just an American thing. I'm culturally aware enough to know what a baseball bat is called though, never watched or played it in my life. A bit off topic though.

well there are about 12 million 80,000 pound trucks in the u.s. i sleep in one every night.
i'am sure there are a few in aus. too
i refer to them as a missle, because of the damage they can do.
not a missile truck.

i was just curious as to what the cricket bat was called. no offense.
i actually want to play sometime.
but not without my gun, i'am a sore loser.