|
Post by slappy on Jan 13, 2013 23:00:20 GMT -5
Oh the second amendment only meant muskets or guns during the time of the Founders. I guess that means no free speech then for the internet or television since the Founders had no idea about those two things. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States Table 1, violent crimes in the US have dropped by nearly 50% in the last twenty years. In 1992, there were 757.7 violent crimes per 100,000 people. In 2011, there were only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people. That’s a reduction of 49%. In 1992 there were nearly 222 million guns in the US. In 2011 there were nearly 270 million guns in the US. Look at that. Guns went up and violence has gone down. Did you guys read this? Also look at this: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Jan 13, 2013 23:20:37 GMT -5
Please refer to the video I posted on page 3. Those are facts. Sure, but they still aren't facts that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that gun control increases gun violence and gun permissiveness decreases gun violence. That idea just goes against common sense and reason. There are other factors at play. To think that having so many weapons available to the good, bad, and the ugly has no negative affect upon society is a pretty scary line of thinking to me. I want to know why all you C&C gun toting heroes aren't out there saving the day. I fought crime once, with my bare hands! Okay, I just grabbed a guy who was shoplifting running through a parking lot, but I didn't hesitate to leap into action! I would be terrified to have a gun in my hand, however.
|
|
Fury
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 21, 2007 21:19:09 GMT -5
Posts: 4,257
|
Post by Fury on Jan 13, 2013 23:29:17 GMT -5
For the people who are saying banning guns isn't a possible solution, I want to ask what you are basing this on. I suggest you then look up the gun banning that we here in Australia enforced where we bought back hundreds of thousands of guns after a mass killing in 1996. Since that time gun crimes and violent crimes have dropped and we've had no mass shootings compared to the 13 in 20 years prior to the banning. And please don't make asinine comparisons to drugs especially marijuana, I could easily obtain drugs in like 1 hour if I wanted because I know people who take them, I wouldn't know the first thing about obtaining a gun because I know no one who owns one or wouldn't know where to start. There is no logical reason for America not to at least do something about the gun situation in America and it starts with some form of gun control, this is the only site or place I've seen that is so adamant that nothing should be done about guns except arming more people.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 13, 2013 23:49:11 GMT -5
Please refer to the video I posted on page 3. Those are facts. Sure, but they still aren't facts that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that gun control increases gun violence and gun permissiveness decreases gun violence. That idea just goes against common sense and reason. There are other factors at play. To think that having so many weapons available to the good, bad, and the ugly has no negative affect upon society is a pretty scary line of thinking to me. I want to know why all you C&C gun toting heroes aren't out there saving the day. I fought crime once, with my bare hands! Okay, I just grabbed a guy who was shoplifting running through a parking lot, but I didn't hesitate to leap into action! I would be terrified to have a gun in my hand, however. Look at states like CA, NY, IL, and even CT.. all of these states have HIGHLY restrictive gun laws. (including high capacity magazine bans, assault weapon bans and near bans on handguns) CA requires a handgun safety course as well as registration with the state for the handgun that you own.. yet last year, there were 866 murders via handgun. Which account for most of their 1220 gun murders. NY also requires a handgun permit to even handle a handgun. The process takes about 6 months, and in NYC, handguns are not even allowed. Yet NY had 394 handgun murders last year. (445 total) States like Vermont (which has some of the more lax gun laws like Open Carry and Concealed Carry) had 4 total gun murders the entire year. Texas, the one state with probably more guns than half of the rest of the US, had 699 total gun murders... which is not fantastic by any sense, but still significantly less than a state like CA that has highly restrictive gun laws.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 13, 2013 23:54:56 GMT -5
Oh the second amendment only meant muskets or guns during the time of the Founders. I guess that means no free speech then for the internet or television since the Founders had no idea about those two things. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States Table 1, violent crimes in the US have dropped by nearly 50% in the last twenty years. In 1992, there were 757.7 violent crimes per 100,000 people. In 2011, there were only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people. That’s a reduction of 49%. In 1992 there were nearly 222 million guns in the US. In 2011 there were nearly 270 million guns in the US. Look at that. Guns went up and violence has gone down. Did you guys read this? Also look at this: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.htmlSlappy, this was actually in the video I posted on page 3, however it's great to see it in chart form. To add to that, the US has 466 per 100,000.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2013 0:03:46 GMT -5
For the people who are saying banning guns isn't a possible solution, I want to ask what you are basing this on. I suggest you then look up the gun banning that we here in Australia enforced where we bought back hundreds of thousands of guns after a mass killing in 1996. Since that time gun crimes and violent crimes have dropped and we've had no mass shootings compared to the 13 in 20 years prior to the banning. And please don't make asinine comparisons to drugs especially marijuana, I could easily obtain drugs in like 1 hour if I wanted because I know people who take them, I wouldn't know the first thing about obtaining a gun because I know no one who owns one or wouldn't know where to start. There is no logical reason for America not to at least do something about the gun situation in America and it starts with some form of gun control, this is the only site or place I've seen that is so adamant that nothing should be done about guns except arming more people. Did you read my post? You obviously didn't read my post. Gun ownership has gone up, violent crime has gone way down. We have a second amendment, a right to bear arms and nobody, for any reason can take that away. Gun confiscation will lead to insurrection. The UK has 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people while the US has only 466. Nearly 4.5 times less than the UK. You may have a lower violent crime rate (92) but you also have 13 times less people than we do. So I imagine if you were the size of us you'd have a lot more violent crime.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2013 0:19:18 GMT -5
HR2X, you also have to look at states like Massachusetts where it's damn near impossible to get a gun permit. Someone I know that lives there wanted to get a gun permit and this is how it was explained to them. They need to take a gun safety course, pass it and pay the over $100 fee for the class. Then you need two letters of recommendation from police officers saying you are fit to own a gun and final approval by the sheriff, who can disregard the letters and make up their own mind if you are fit to own a gun plus another $75 after that if the sheriff approves you for the permit. So minimum $175 just to get a permit which does not include the cost of the gun or bullets which will be hundreds more. So it is most likely going to cost you north of $500 by the time you are done with it and that's going the legal route.
In CT, Adam Lanza tried to get a gun legally but the background check stopped him from doing so. So what did he do? Something that someone who is intent on killing would do, steal a gun. He illegally stole (redundant I know) his mother's guns. So the system didn't fail. In fact, it worked. He just went around the system, something that people who are intent on hunting or keeping their families safe would not do.
Making the guns harder to buy or the permits harder to obtain only impact those who are legally going to buy a gun. No criminal is going to care what the law says about permits or classes. It's not going to stop them, you only stop the law abiding citizen.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2013 1:51:28 GMT -5
Did you read my post? You obviously didn't read my post. Gun ownership has gone up, violent crime has gone way down. We have a second amendment, a right to bear arms and nobody, for any reason can take that away. Gun confiscation will lead to insurrection. The UK has 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people while the US has only 466. Nearly 4.5 times less than the UK. You may have a lower violent crime rate (92) but you also have 13 times less people than we do. So I imagine if you were the size of us you'd have a lot more violent crime. Kind of missed the point of my post there. It was showing a direct causation in the banning of guns and an increase in safety and has worked in the past FYI to counteract the idea that banning guns would have no effect, how else do you explain the drop from 13 mass shootings in 20 years prior to the gun banning to the 0 in 16 years after the banning. And I don't know what population has to do with it, since we've banned the guns population has increased by like 5 million and violent crimes haven't really increased. I also don't understand the 2nd amendment law because it has no context today, it was made 200 years ago it didn't take into account that there'd be shootings at schools. I'm not going to continue to argue since I've made my point and its not that important to me what your country does, I just can't fathom why stuff like this can happen year after year and absolutely nothing is being done about the gun situation. I think there is precedence here with what Australia did and if you enforced some sort of control or even a banning then the rates would decrease even more and you'd have significantly less mass shootings and gun crimes. You're entitled to your opinion and if you think guns are fine then fine, I just don't understand this America's fascination with guns and why nothing is being done about it, it doesn't paint your country in a good light. And I've shown you that we have increased the amount of guns and violent crime has gone down by half. I do like how you tout no mass shootings because there are still regular shootings that kill people, it's just one or two at a time now instead of maybe 8 or 9. That's like Chicago. Gun ban but no mass shootings, they just kill a couple people at a time. I guess it's better that way? I'm not talking about increasing your population by 20%. I'm talking about increasing your population by 300 million and see how much more crime you have compared to a place with only 23 million people. If we had that few people we would have much lower violent crime rates as well. There have been 42 mass shootings since 2000 (95% of them with less than 8 victims (dead or wounded). The decade prior, the 90s saw 42 mass shootings as well (again few victims dead or wounded). We had 7 mass shootings in 2012 and 1999. The difference between the two? There was an assault weapons ban in 1999. Without the ban we managed to keep the number as low as when the ban was in place. Plus, you cannot compare the number mass shootings to the homicide rate as our mass shootings, most of the time, end with very few victims. In 2011, 13% of your homicides were from guns. 39% were from knives. So murderers are just going with other weapons they have available. It's not a law, it's a right. Meaning they can't take it away. I guess we get rid of the first amendment because they didn't expect us to be able to communicate like we do. They couldn't have envisioned TV or the internet so bring on SOPA and ACTA. I mean might as well censor the internet because there is no such thing as free speech anymore because the Founders couldn't have realized what would happen. I guess we can ban cars because they didn't envision those either and they kill way more than guns. But since you want to make the joke about them not envisioning school shootings, in 1764 (before we even were a country) 10 people were killed in a school shooting. 14 school shootings between 1853 and 1898. Mass shootings happen. Guess what? We are just hearing about them more because our media is ridiculous. We don't do things to make others think more fondly of us. In regards to the Colorado theater shooting:
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Jan 14, 2013 2:25:25 GMT -5
So a movie theater full of guys with guns in the dark would have been a safer place? Did that jackass shooter ever say he picked that theater because of the gun ban? Because I think this John Lott guy seems to be assuming a lot - and also seems to be good at twisting facts to support his argument. (And he looks really weird.) I think the vast majority of people who have guns ultimately have little to no effect on the amount of gun violence. How many people have guns for self-defense that they never ever use? How many criminals are deterred from their crimes by the possibility that their target has a gun? I don't believe that anybody here who carries a gun is really doing anything at all to deter gun violence. Maybe violence has gone down because of better police work. Maybe outreach programs to gangs are working. And not all gun violence is the same. Mass shootings disturb us. But how many people are fighting to stop gang vs gang violence? I know some people would actually encourage it. The inner city violence in Chicago is a completely different issue than crazy white boy mass shootings. Not all gun violence is the same. I'm just a little worried about people lumping everything together to get a simple answer, so that can just make up their mind and move on with their lives. The fact that the NRA responds to queries with paranoia is troubling - that wasn't what the NRA was founded for nor what they've always been. And while I think it's ridiculous that you can buy an assault rifle from Wal-Mart, I don't think assault weapons bans will accomplish anything, since you can just as easily kill somebody with a pistol. But it still makes no sense to me that we treat guns so lightly in America.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jan 14, 2013 6:18:25 GMT -5
Heard someone argue (not necessarily on WF, can't remember where it was) that they had weapons to protect themselves from the government. How does that work? Even if you kill some policemen who were at your door, how are you going to get away? You gonna fight against the whole government? They have nuclear weapons. Bit of a one sided fight. Just encapsulates the whole gun debate for me. What I also will say is that people from the UK will never understand people from the USA on this issue. You might as well be speaking another language because the pro-gun people in this thread make no sense to me. And I make no sense to them. We come from different countries and have no similarities on this issue. Its kinda pointless debating because everything surrounding us at home agrees with us, but the internet is not home. Its difficult for all sides to comprehend that such an opposing opinion can be backed so completely by so many people. Dropping nuclear bombs on their own country would be a bit self defeating now wouldn't it? Defense is of the home land, it's not to be interpreted as one "Rambo" vs the entire government.. it's the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE will band together to over take a tyrannical government, just like we did in 1776. Thats the thing that people in the UK don't get right there, you we're not slaves to another country, we were. We rose up and took this land for ourselves, and if we have to, we'll do it again. UKers have never realized that they're being oppressed because of the simple fact that you've known oppression for probably most of your lives (gun ban was what, 15 years ago? most people on this forum are 15-25), you do not know what it's like to be free like Americans do. You weren't slaves... you owned them. I highly doubt the 'people' will ever again band together in the USA. Even if they did the government would crush them, as the military is by far the biggest and most advanced the world has ever seen. There's no point even trying. No need for guns if that's your best argument. I take offence to the fact you say that we've "known oppression". What the ? Oppression is where people in Africa, South America and Asia are ruled by dictators and are not allowed basic human rights such as free speech and freedom of movement. A gun ban that is almost unanimously supported by the population is just common ing sense. As for you saying we don't have freedom of speech in your next post, that's just ridiculous and proves you have minimal knowledge of our country. Oh the second amendment only meant muskets or guns during the time of the Founders. I guess that means no free speech then for the internet or television since the Founders had no idea about those two things. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States Table 1, violent crimes in the US have dropped by nearly 50% in the last twenty years. In 1992, there were 757.7 violent crimes per 100,000 people. In 2011, there were only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people. That’s a reduction of 49%. In 1992 there were nearly 222 million guns in the US. In 2011 there were nearly 270 million guns in the US. Look at that. Guns went up and violence has gone down. Did you guys read this? Also look at this: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.htmlTHE DAILY MAIL OMGEEEZ SO RELIABLEZ I'll let you off because you probably don't know, but the Daily Mail is an unreliable tabloid that will manipulate anything into a good story. They once had the headline that black people were more likely to get cancer. They're a joke.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 14, 2013 8:03:15 GMT -5
Just because the site that reported it isn't reliable doesn't mean the facts are any less true.. the source is clearly listed on there, and I believe it's been reported by multiple media sources. Your attempt to discredit the facts by claiming the site that reposted it is unreliable is funny.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jan 14, 2013 12:04:09 GMT -5
Just because the site that reported it isn't reliable doesn't mean the facts are any less true.. the source is clearly listed on there, and I believe it's been reported by multiple media sources. Your attempt to discredit the facts by claiming the site that reposted it is unreliable is funny. Way to ignore the two-thirds of my post that criticised you specifically. I'll just post some other stats instead: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateThe USA is by far the highest MEDC on the list. I think that is definitely related to the country's laissez-faire approach to guns.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 14, 2013 12:34:36 GMT -5
Just because the site that reported it isn't reliable doesn't mean the facts are any less true.. the source is clearly listed on there, and I believe it's been reported by multiple media sources. Your attempt to discredit the facts by claiming the site that reposted it is unreliable is funny. Way to ignore the two-thirds of my post that criticised you specifically. I'll just post some other stats instead: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateThe USA is by far the highest MEDC on the list. I think that is definitely related to the country's laissez-faire approach to guns. Those are out of date statistics, the 2011 ones were just released, stating that the US has 2.97 homicides per 100,000 and rank 28th overall out of all countries. The US is number 1 in gun ownership in the world with roughly 88 guns per 100 people. if more guns = more deaths by guns, wouldn't the US be number 1 in that category as well and not number 28?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 23:57:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 12:45:09 GMT -5
Just because the site that reported it isn't reliable doesn't mean the facts are any less true.. the source is clearly listed on there, and I believe it's been reported by multiple media sources. Your attempt to discredit the facts by claiming the site that reposted it is unreliable is funny. Way to ignore the two-thirds of my post that criticised you specifically. I'll just post some other stats instead: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateThe USA is by far the highest MEDC on the list. I think that is definitely related to the country's laissez-faire approach to guns. ...because Wikipedia is anymore of a reliable source
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jan 14, 2013 12:52:55 GMT -5
Those are out of date statistics, the 2011 ones were just released, stating that the US has 2.97 homicides per 100,000 and rank 28th overall out of all countries. The US is number 1 in gun ownership in the world with roughly 88 guns per 100 people. if more guns = more deaths by guns, wouldn't the US be number 1 in that category as well and not number 28? No, because its a general principle that can be influenced by other factors. The countries higher than the USA are poor and have little security, making them perfect for violent crime. When the USA is compared with countries of a similar standard of living then it shows up worse than those with less guns. ...because Wikipedia is anymore of a reliable source Wikipedia is reliable. I can't stand people saying it isn't. They have people who check edits to see if they're bullshit. They have no agenda, whereas the Daily Mail wants to stir up as much trouble as possible.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Jan 14, 2013 14:19:06 GMT -5
The PEOPLE will band together to over take a tyrannical government, just like we did in 1776. Thats the thing that people in the UK don't get right there, you we're not slaves to another country, we were. We rose up and took this land for ourselves, and if we have to, we'll do it again. UKers have never realized that they're being oppressed because of the simple fact that you've known oppression for probably most of your lives (gun ban was what, 15 years ago? most people on this forum are 15-25), you do not know what it's like to be free like Americans do. 1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN! As a fellow American, I don't share you feelings about freedom at all. And I don't think the people in the UK are being unknowingly oppressed, either.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 14, 2013 14:33:53 GMT -5
The PEOPLE will band together to over take a tyrannical government, just like we did in 1776. Thats the thing that people in the UK don't get right there, you we're not slaves to another country, we were. We rose up and took this land for ourselves, and if we have to, we'll do it again. UKers have never realized that they're being oppressed because of the simple fact that you've known oppression for probably most of your lives (gun ban was what, 15 years ago? most people on this forum are 15-25), you do not know what it's like to be free like Americans do. 1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN! As a fellow American, I don't share you feelings about freedom at all. And I don't think the people in the UK are being unknowingly oppressed, either. Then what are your feelings of freedom?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jan 14, 2013 15:46:14 GMT -5
I'd like to thank all the gun nuts in this thread for pushing me over to -100 karma
|
|
|
Post by Ben - #6 Munchie on Jan 14, 2013 15:50:01 GMT -5
I'd like to thank all the gun nuts in this thread for pushing me over to -100 karma -99 babes
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jan 14, 2013 15:57:56 GMT -5
I'd like to thank all the gun nuts in this thread for pushing me over to -100 karma -99 babes Was -100 at the time -_- -98 now
|
|