Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US: "Far more gun-related killings than ANY other developed country"

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

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)


It's in my first post chief.

Here it is again: Would Banning Guns reduce Murder and Suicide?

If you need further hand holding feel free to ask.


Now read the rest of my post, chief.

Have you actually read the conclusion of that paper? Why would you even think this is proof.
edit on 2-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


If they were normal, they wouldn't be doing mass shootings now would they? At least that is my understanding.

But your perception of normal differs, either just to make your point or because thats how you actually view it.Either way, I am not caring/wanting to change that.

Thanks,
Blend57



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Cocasinpry
 


I know, but it not a fair assessment, unless you take population into consideration.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by blend57
reply to post by SpearMint
 


If they were normal, they wouldn't be doing mass shootings now would they? At least that is my understanding.

But your perception of normal differs, either just to make your point or because thats how you actually view it.Either way, I am not caring/wanting to change that.

Thanks,
Blend57


Note that I put "normal" in quotation marks. What I mean is they previously were not murderers or criminals. You're straying from the point.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


I'll take that as a willful admission of ignorance thereby nullifying any future opinions you may have on the subject.

Maybe there's a Galileo out there you can charge with heresy?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Could you address my question please, as to why you trust the government?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by SpearMint
 


I'll take that as a willful admission of ignorance thereby nullifying any future opinions you may have on the subject.

Maybe there's a Galileo out there you can charge with heresy?


You can take an ignorant and self-convincing take on what I've said if you want, it isn't going to affect me is it? If anything that's just your way of backing out after you've realised what I said is true and you have provided absolutely no proof of me being wrong. This is very evident by your above sentence, trying to end the debate whilst coming out superior. You can't provide nothing on your side, claim I'm ignorant and do that, it would look silly.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

You can take an ignorant and self-convincing take on what I've said if you want, it isn't going to affect me is it? If anything that's just your way of backing out after you've realised what I said is true and you have provided absolutely no proof of me being wrong. This is very evident by your above sentence, trying to end the debate whilst coming out superior. You can't provide nothing on your side, claim I'm ignorant and do that, it would look silly.


You've read the conclusion, that's nice. Only 45 more pages to go.

Here it is for anyone wondering:


This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.


So essentially you're fighting tooth and nail to accomplish tyranny for the sake of tyranny since no evidence of benefit is to be had beyond a childish correlation of "guns = bad therefore more guns = more bad".

Here's a question, you tell me what it would take to convince you. I ask because I'm pretty sure there isnt any information or experience I could present that would convince you. I could load you and your choir up and sail to the horizon and still you'd be screaming that we're all going to fall off.
edit on 2-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
Could you address my question please, as to why you trust the government?


I have to assume your unwillingness to answer this most important of questions as an admission you have no reason to trust your government.

That said, it seems to me asking for a government you dont trust to pass any legislation at all is pretty nieve to say the least


edit on 2-1-2013 by TheMindWar because: Typo



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by SpearMint

You can take an ignorant and self-convincing take on what I've said if you want, it isn't going to affect me is it? If anything that's just your way of backing out after you've realised what I said is true and you have provided absolutely no proof of me being wrong. This is very evident by your above sentence, trying to end the debate whilst coming out superior. You can't provide nothing on your side, claim I'm ignorant and do that, it would look silly.


You've read the conclusion, that's nice. Only 45 more pages to go.

Here it is for anyone wondering:


This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.


So essentially you're fighting tooth and nail to accomplish tyranny for the sake of tyranny since no evidence of benefit is to be had beyond a childish correlation of "guns = bad therefore more guns = more bad".


You can cling on to a rather inconclusive conclusion but it isn't becoming any more proof than it was before.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by minnow
 


As long as you have gangs that can get guns and are willing to kill people to get what they want to avoid working you will see lots of murders. Especially in a country where it's easy to get a gun.

We have gangs but gun crime is not high at all, because they are not so easy to access for just the average joe. In turn we see very low amounts of gang related crimes as well.

The facts are pretty plain. Easy gun access does equal more crime no matter how the gun advocates slice their facts, this cannot be refuted. Their refusal to acknowledge this shows a lack of compassion.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

You can cling on to a rather inconclusive conclusion but it isn't becoming any more proof than it was before.


I showed you mine. Show me yours? I assume it's airtight, absolute, based on real data and not floating precariously on a sea of emotion at all?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


Government is not the issue. Guns are the issue.
You trust your government to regulate drugs don't you? As well as all the food you consume which most of which contains drugs. They also decide all the laws which you abide too.

No, your government doesn't know what it's doing.. It makes weed illegal yet lets guns run rampant in the streets.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
There is some good, hard data in Mac's source.




While
American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other
developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France,
Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries,
however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed
nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example,
Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership
of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times
higher than Germany in 2002.9
Table 1: European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates
(rates given are per 100,000 people and in descending order)
Notes: This table covers all the Continental European nations for which
the two data sets given are both available. In every case, we have given
the homicide data for 2003 or the closest year thereto because that is the
year of the publication from which the gun ownership data are taken. Gun
ownership data comes from GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES, SMALL ARMS SURVEY 64 tbl.2.2, 65 tbl.2.3 (2003).

Nation Murder Rate Rate of Gun Ownership
Russia 20.54 [2002] 4,000
Luxembourg 9.01 [2002] 0
Hungary 2.22 [2003] 2,000
Finland 1.98 [2004] 39,000
Sweden 1.87 [2001] 24,000
Poland 1.79 [2003] 1,500
France 1.65 [2003] 30,000
Denmark 1.21 [2003] 19,000
Greece 1.12 [2003] 11,000
Switzerland 0.99 [2003] 16,000
Germany 0.93 [2003] 30,000
Norway 0.81 [2001] 36,000
Austria 0.80 [2002] 17,000


Sorry for trhe format, but copy and paste a PDF is not the smoothest transition.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


Government is not the issue. Guns are the issue.
You trust your government to regulate drugs don't you? As well as all the food you consume which most of which contains drugs. They also decide all the laws which you abide too.

No, your government doesn't know what it's doing.. It makes weed illegal yet lets guns run rampant in the streets.




Are you saying you want a government you dont trust to pass "trustworthy" gun laws?

Giving guns to untrustworthy establishments seems a stupid idea to me


Government is at the heart of this issue



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


I trust them more than you.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by SpearMint

You can cling on to a rather inconclusive conclusion but it isn't becoming any more proof than it was before.


I showed you mine. Show me yours? I assume it's airtight, absolute, based on real data and not floating precariously on a sea of emotion at all?


The statistics from a logical point of view. I doubt you can see that on your own but I really have no intention on wasting any more time on a subject that shouldn't really concern me. My country has a very low homicide rate and very few guns, it's nice (and no, that's not what I'm basing what I've said on). You have not shown me yours at all, you have shown me quite a useless paper that basically just shifts the burden of proof, you've done nothing to prove me wrong.
edit on 2-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by SpearMint

You can cling on to a rather inconclusive conclusion but it isn't becoming any more proof than it was before.


I showed you mine. Show me yours? I assume it's airtight, absolute, based on real data and not floating precariously on a sea of emotion at all?


The statistics from a logical point of view. I doubt you can see that on your own but I really have no intention on wasting any more time on a subject that shouldn't really concern me. My country has a very low homicide rate and very few guns, it's nice (and no, that's not what I'm basing what I've said on).


What country is it? Then we can look up the data.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Is it me or since the shooting a bunch of gun control shills have appeared on message boards all over the place?

OP, how much the government is paying you for your treasonous propaganda?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by SpearMint

You can cling on to a rather inconclusive conclusion but it isn't becoming any more proof than it was before.


I showed you mine. Show me yours? I assume it's airtight, absolute, based on real data and not floating precariously on a sea of emotion at all?


The statistics from a logical point of view. I doubt you can see that on your own but I really have no intention on wasting any more time on a subject that shouldn't really concern me. My country has a very low homicide rate and very few guns, it's nice (and no, that's not what I'm basing what I've said on).


What country is it? Then we can look up the data.


It doesn't matter, and neither does the data, the homicide rates of my country isn't the subject is it? All I'll say is that it's very low, especially compared to America. This is irrelevant though.
edit on 2-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join