It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by SpearMint
Guess you don't know how to sort spreadsheet data correctly. Are Brazil, Venezuala, South Africa, Argentina, The Bahamas, etc. count as third-world countries? Look at all the '3rd world countries' below us on the list. Learn to use the data correctly. Sheesh.
Originally posted by SpearMint
Of course it does, other weapons are much more easily stopped for starters, I don't care what Harvard says because without actually observing it happening their study is flawed. What you're saying is Americans are naturally murderous animals, because the gun homicide vs other homicide rate is WAY out of proportion compared to countries that don't have a lot of guns, other homicides are quite similar per capita whilst gun homicides are through the roof. It quite obviously plays a huge part, and that's not counting the rampages that simply wouldn't have happened without a legally owned gun.
Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or
declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime. Even if one is inclined to think that gun availability is an important factor, the available international data cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.
It quite obviously plays a huge part, and that's not counting the rampages that simply wouldn't have happened without a legally owned gun.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
And here we see the absolute certainty of ignorance.
Originally posted by SpearMint
Of course it does, other weapons are much more easily stopped for starters, I don't care what Harvard says because without actually observing it happening their study is flawed. What you're saying is Americans are naturally murderous animals, because the gun homicide vs other homicide rate is WAY out of proportion compared to countries that don't have a lot of guns, other homicides are quite similar per capita whilst gun homicides are through the roof. It quite obviously plays a huge part, and that's not counting the rampages that simply wouldn't have happened without a legally owned gun.
What's it like to be so wrong yet so sure? Is it like some intoxicating wine?
Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or
declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime. Even if one is inclined to think that gun availability is an important factor, the available international data cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.
After youve spent millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on your own study you can get back to me.
Until then you're apparently just another delusional zealot who will damn reality to the end of time.
Originally posted by Cocasinpry
reply to post by TheMindWar
I don't believe that... I believe that we are born pure. If you are a parent then you know exactly what I mean, no matter how much they keep you up at night, hehe.
Yeah, some have the misfortune of growing up in slums but where someone lives or the life someone has had isn't the sum of their character nor of their moral values. Sure, some of them will break but some of them will come out of it stronger and wiser than most rich people who never had to struggle for anything in their lives.
Now I'm not arguing that guns are the entirety of the problem. Class war and what I've come to know as class segregation is the number one problem. Greed, hate and envy. What is needed is a school system based on common sense which emphasizes love and respect. Unfortunately our kids are taught to compete as soon as they as sent to school... compete for better grades, better positions in team sports, better friends and then that carries on to better jobs, better salary and better everything.
But those problems are common in all developed countries, what sets the US apart (and what this thread is about) is the amount of gun related homicides compared to other developed countries around the world. You already have tons of pissed off people, so why the hell would you want to hand them guns to make their vengeance so much easier? Taking the guns away isn't a solution to the global problem of hate but it is a step in the right direction in reducing the amount of casualties from these people gone mad.
Originally posted by SpearMint
You're so sure that I'm wrong yet you provide no proof of it. Interesting. I'm still sure that you are wrong.
What you're saying is "Americans are just homicidal animals regardless of the weapons available". It's either that or guns are the problem, and although a lot of Americans are brought up in a very violent setting that promotes gun use, I don't believe they are quite as animalistic as you suggest (and that IS what you're suggesting by denying guns increase the murder rate whether you realise it or not).
Originally posted by blend57
reply to post by SpearMint
It quite obviously plays a huge part, and that's not counting the rampages that simply wouldn't have happened without a legally owned gun.
Sooo…let me get this straight; you’re saying that criminals (AKA the bad guys) would not perform mass shootings because it was illegal to carry/own/have a gun?
I don’t think so scooter.
That logic is flawed.
Thanks,
Blend57
Originally posted by shivaX
Gun's should not be banned but tighter regulations should be set up to acquire them.
Also those who apply for a gun should be tested for any previous/current mental illness.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Originally posted by SpearMint
You're so sure that I'm wrong yet you provide no proof of it. Interesting. I'm still sure that you are wrong.
What you're saying is "Americans are just homicidal animals regardless of the weapons available". It's either that or guns are the problem, and although a lot of Americans are brought up in a very violent setting that promotes gun use, I don't believe they are quite as animalistic as you suggest (and that IS what you're suggesting by denying guns increase the murder rate whether you realise it or not).
Are you really saying I offer no proof while at the same time saying "I dont care what Harvard says" and ignoring the study I have brought to your attention?
Wow.
Originally posted by Cocasinpry
reply to post by TheMindWar
I don't believe that... I believe that we are born pure. If you are a parent then you know exactly what I mean, no matter how much they keep you up at night, hehe.
Yeah, some have the misfortune of growing up in slums but where someone lives or the life someone has had isn't the sum of their character nor of their moral values. Sure, some of them will break but some of them will come out of it stronger and wiser than most rich people who never had to struggle for anything in their lives.
Now I'm not arguing that guns are the entirety of the problem. Class war and what I've come to know as class segregation is the number one problem. Greed, hate and envy. What is needed is a school system based on common sense which emphasizes love and respect. Unfortunately our kids are taught to compete as soon as they as sent to school... compete for better grades, better positions in team sports, better friends and then that carries on to better jobs, better salary and better everything.
But those problems are common in all developed countries, what sets the US apart (and what this thread is about) is the amount of gun related homicides compared to other developed countries around the world. You already have tons of pissed off people, so why the hell would you want to hand them guns to make their vengeance so much easier? Taking the guns away isn't a solution to the global problem of hate but it is a step in the right direction in reducing the amount of casualties from these people gone mad.
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Originally posted by SpearMint
You're so sure that I'm wrong yet you provide no proof of it. Interesting. I'm still sure that you are wrong.
What you're saying is "Americans are just homicidal animals regardless of the weapons available". It's either that or guns are the problem, and although a lot of Americans are brought up in a very violent setting that promotes gun use, I don't believe they are quite as animalistic as you suggest (and that IS what you're suggesting by denying guns increase the murder rate whether you realise it or not).
Are you really saying I offer no proof while at the same time saying "I dont care what Harvard says" and ignoring the study I have brought to your attention?
Wow.
A Harvard study (that you haven't actually linked to) is not even remotely proof, a university is not all-knowing and it's not something you can disprove without seeing it actually happen. So yes, I'm saying you've offered absolutely no proof.edit on 2-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by minnow
Yes but what about undeveloped countries? This is BS to put it plainly, because I am sure there are third world countries that have higher instances of gun related deaths especially right in Iraq Iran and Syria.
And they're unarmed citizens being killed by rebels and by their own government. This is such a stupid article, we also have the highest population.edit on 2-1-2013 by ldyserenity because: add
The US isn't an undeveloped country, so it doesn't matter. You want to be compared to undeveloped countries?
It's not a stupid article, and your attitude is part of the problem, you refuse to accept the facts. Population is irrelevant because it's per capita (You don't have the highest population anyway).edit on 2-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)