Because some people don't think through their arguments.
Jolt, do you need the internet?
Printable View
Because some people don't think through their arguments.
Jolt, do you need the internet?
I thought there was a life long ban on gun threads anyway. Didn't something crazy happen back in 2000, like a bunch of Welsh TW players broke into Gregoshi's house and made inflammatory posts in the now-defunct Org gardening section which made Idaho mad and threaten to kill himself? Or am I getting things mixed up?
Personally I do not NEED the internet.....to follow through on what you are trying to get at here...I´ll say right here than when people start using the internet to blow other people´s heads off I´ll accept the need to make the internet use heavily regulated like guns should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
whoever since I can´t violently kill my neighbour using my Internet connection I´d say that the parallel you are trying to create doesn´t really apply.
You've obviously never used AOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
It is not about needing anything. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I am a free man and should not have to prove I need anything or convince the government they should allow me to have it.Quote:
Why does it have to be about need?
It is my right.
It happened before I joined, or entered the backroom (there was a time when I spent most of my time on the MTW forums!), but I heard a gun debate caused a bunch of people to get their ideological friends to register and start some sort of super-flamming debate. And that was what made them put in the junior member bit.Quote:
I thought there was a life long ban on gun threads anyway. Didn't something crazy happen back in 2000, like a bunch of Welsh TW players broke into Gregoshi's house and made inflammatory posts in the now-defunct Org gardening section which made Idaho mad and threaten to kill himself? Or am I getting things mixed up?
CR
also I've been playing a lot of left for dead lately...
Mom: Girl killed herself over online hoaxQuote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
edit: South Korean man dies after Starcraft marathon
Do you need video games Ronin?
I am making a simple question, to see if I can understand the rationale of violent opposition to banning firearms which frankly, don't add up to the protection of anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
As to your question, yes I need the internet as a concentrated source of information which I primarily use to the advancement of my personal life. Furthermore I need to internet as a tool to coordinate my country so my personal needs (And the needs of the society) are better fulfilled.
From your point of view, we can extrapolate that it is in your right to possess nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry without your government having any say in it whatsoever. Why are they banning nuclear weapons anyway? Pfft, it only limits your own freedom to defend yourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
They do add to the protection of people, both implied and literal, but you don't hear that from most of the media the US exports. Maybe in your country, firearms wouldn't help. We live in different places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Gun control works fairly well in countries that have not allowed firearms for a very long time. Constitution aside, it won't work here. There are too many guns, there is too much crime, and we have a fairly open immigration and legal system which does well at protecting peoples rights but nonetheless slows justice down to a snails pace sometimes and makes it very easy for people to move around the country to avoid prosecution and target new victims.
I don't know if this has been posted yet, but this is from ABCs 20/20 from 2007. I don't like the packaging of the story, but considering its coming from what many consider to be a liberal network maybe somebody listened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YT...eature=related
This violent opposition to firearms regulation is just as furious on the other side, where people lie their heads off or use personal tragedies as a catalyst for regulation. Even the leadership if DC -- in the wake of a city who clearly expressed they wanted their guns back -- refused to acknowledge facts, smothered people with hyperbole, accused them of fraud, muzzled peoples opinions and laid out the typical "I know whats best for you" that career politicians are so good at. It took the highest court in the nation to give back what the city had been asking for for years.
The "assault weapons ban" is just feel-good legislation that will do nothing but punish people who have been obeying the law all along, and every step taken is a step gained towards a complete agenda. I don't particularly want to sit through a 20 year period of the literal urban warfare that would ensue between criminals and victims for the long term grand noble cause of a gun free society.
Right, and we can extrapolate from your point of view that you want to ban video games and the internet :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Everything you've said was already answered in this thread. Check Seamus's posts and you'll find and answer to this question.
Let's keep this in perspective. I haven't heard any Congressional leaders calling for a return to the Assault Weapons Ban. I haven't heard the President call for it. So far it's just the AG shooting off his mouth in an interview.
AGs have been known to say stupid things.
Alberto Gonzales said a lot of dumb things. John Ashcroft said a lot of dumb things. Janet Reno said a lot of dumb things. Edwin Meese couldn't get through a day without saying something abysmally stupid.
Until I see real action, I'm not going to start hoarding 17-round Glock magazines. Neither should you.
As I said before Big L, I don't think it will happen because it costs democrats dearly the last time around. People either don't want it, and a lot of the ones who do don't understand it.
I would expect some sort insignificant gun control moves by the Democrats in the near future, to make it look like they are doing something, and not unlike the flag burning amendments that pop up from time to time from a Republican looking to woo his constituents.
What really gets my interest where groups are trying to allow guns back on college campuses and in government buildings, theres quite a drama being played out here in okieland.
Where did it go, where did it go, come on, where is it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Oh, yes. Found it.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
"Advancing your personal life" isn't worth the viruses, identity theft, hackers breaking into government systems, and the proliferation of child pornography.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
You don't need access to the internet; a select, trained few from the government can handle the needs of society with internet access for them alone.
Unless you really like the proliferation of child pornography? You don't want that, do you?
Now that is something like the answer I was looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Maybe the problem isn't really gun control and someone should open a thread about how to improve your legal system to become faster etc.
at least that would be constructive criticism and not just "No we need gunz to shoot immigrantz and because we like to do that and why not!".
Yes, I do need the internet despite those problems simply because those problems are to be dealt with by the government (Except for the viruses). If the Internet was banned, there wouldn't be a replacement. If Assault Rifles were banned...bleh, you still had ordinary firearms, pistols and shotguns to defend yourself. That is why my question went unanswered, because people don't need Assault Rifles in any scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
The "few" can't handle the scope and size of what the Internet has become, otherwise the virtual flux of information would drop from 9999999999999999999999 to 100. Internet has become an integral part of every developed society in the world. Halting it would lead to a gigantic recession due to interdependency bonds being cut off all the sudden. Assault Rifles aren't an integral part of any society that I know of (Unless you talk about Somalia).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
One side - Child pornography = Other side - World EconomyQuote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
One side - Assault Rifles = Other side - Pistols & Shotguns
Yeap, seems like they are too similar.
Hehe. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
If you think about it though, who is the Second Amendment directed towards? You will need assault weapons to defend yourself from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
A hit is a hit and there are rifles that hit with more power than many assault rifles. If you can't aim then you will lose anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Can't you defend yourself from "them", with a shotgun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Yes, but then why do militaries have assault rifles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
From the government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
First, it's impossible to win against the government so owning guns is useless now the governments such a pushover that we only need shotguns and rifles.
Truly ROFLCOPPTER
Yes. If we go down the "Oppressive Government needs to be repelled with all might necessary" path, why stop in Assault Rifles? It would be better to have artillery already stocked up, tank rounds gathered up, military planes and choppers with full armament, Anti-Air weaponry, etc. That way if the government begins oppressing the people, the people already has a standard army ready to even crush airforce and armored regiments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Well yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
I do draw the line at nuclear weapons. I'm not a complete nut.
They probably can't aim so they try to send as many bullets to the other side as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
The problem is that most people can't afford that - by the way, there has been quite a successful resistance in Iraq using mostly small arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
That girl killed herself because a malisious rumour was launched about her.........peer pressure and meaness can do that, and it exists with or without the use of an internet connection, unless that mother actually got on her computer and hit a command that said "kill girl X" I can not see how you can say that girl was killed by the internet.....so the parallel with guns does not stand.
as for the guy that died from playing videogames......any person that engages in a draining activity for 50 straight hours is an idiot...
and yes....I would be all for outlawing stupidity....because that´s the bigger killer of them all.....unfortunately I think that if we outlaw stupidity we are gonna run out of jail space very quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It could be argued that it is also the right of those who are against gun ownership to feel free to walk out of their houses and walk down the street without having to worry if each person they walk past is packing.
I mean....what kind of society does it produce when I have to worry what I say some guy if I get in an argument at work....because he might get pissed enough to pull out a gun?
I wonder how a supervisor in the US post office feels every time he needs to give a negative job evaluation to one of the employees in his charge.....does he get his affairs in order before doing so?
And if some moron cuts me off in traffic do I dare have a moment of unconsidered emotion and give him the finger?....what if he has a gun in his glove compartment?
Is a society where you have to walk on eggshells around your fellow citizens a free one?
You can have most of those things if you register them (and pay a hefty fee). The ammunition would have to be registered individually and separately, so a legal arsenal is very expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
How many people have been killed by privately owned anti-tank weaponry, for example? Gangsters are not interested in them because 1) it's silly expensive and 2) every cop and g-man in America will want to bag the the guy who uses it in a mod hit.
Seriously, most of the gun murders in America are from pistols, which is the opposite of your argument.
Ronin - why don't you ask someone in a place with high gun ownership? I suspect that you don't have much experience with such a place. I know I don't.
Actually, a car is considerably more dangerous than a gun. Think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I don't see why guns change the equation so very much. Do you worry about a co-worker punching you? He could take that pen in his hand and stab you in the neck. Is that a serious concern? Just because guns make lethal violence easier doesn't mean they make it more likely.
No...I don´t worry about someone punching me....Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
....maybe I´m wrong but I don´t see numerous reports about people being stabbed by pens....but I´ll keep and eye out for that.
guns make lethal violence a LOT easier...and therefore more probable to be attempted (and more important to be successful) in a moment of ill-considered anger....I believe there is ample examples to prove this. to say nothing of the lone nut who actually plans it out before coming in to the office and blowing everyone's brains out.
On the contrary, an angry person would be more likely to think twice if he had a more lethal weapon available. Simply throwing a punch is easy - the victim is not likely to be seriously injured. Drawing a handgun, on the other hand, is not only likely to cause the perpetrator to think twice - it is also very rare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
So if for example you are in a bar and some drunken fool tries to start a fight with you..you would rather him have a gun than not?
I would rather he had no gun and tried to take a swing at me.....I´m not so sure a person in such a condition would "think twice" before pulling a gun.
Acording to CR's concept of freedom, I am led to believe that it is even ridiculous that you have to register firearms. How dare the government keep track of how much firearms he has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
True. But something tells me that if Anti-tank weaponry would be as readily available in market as there are Uzi's and glocks, something tells me the number of people being killed by those weapons would skyrocket. I certainly wouldn't be surprised in Gang Wars appearing the said Anti-tank weaponry as a means to do splash damage to the opposite gang.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Opposite to my argument? That's funny. My stance is that even pistols shouldn't be available as they are in the USA, although I can understand the basic logic behind having a firearm. My argument in this thread is that there are more than enough types of firearms in the USA able of protecting yourself (Pistols included), so its hard to understand the violent opposition unless you use some kind of out of the blue argument (To other peoples) like (WE NEEDZ ASSAULT RIFLEZ TO KILLZ TEH TYRANTZ!), to which I find odd. Thus they are defending that every citizen, regardless of mental health, ideals and or beliefs (Imagine Neo-Nazi's getting hold of sweet hot brand new Assault Rifles!) is viable to carry firearms which far surpass any limit of common sense I can establish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
You're looking at hypotheticals - where are the statistics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
They can - but guess what! They'd be too scared to use them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
The hypothesis is clear enough....I don´t feel I need statistics to back up simple common sense....Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
and secondly...and more importantly, I´m certainly not gonna spend my sunday night looking up statistics.
A polite one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
That is against a Democratic Government (USA) which is highly pressured by Public Opinion and obeys (Or tries to) the high standards of avoiding colleteral damage. Do you think a dictatorship would think twice before using much more aggressive methods to quell the Iraqi resistence? Do you think a dictatorship the said Americans would try to fight would think twice before using every and all methods to build the :daisy: out of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I'll give you two examples. One you got the Sicilian Mafia. In both Democratic Governments of Italy (Pre and Post-Mussolini until nowadays) the governments obviously valued more the interest of the general well-being of the society than ruthlessly quelling the Mafia. When Mussolini got to power, the tactics the Mafia used to protect themselves were quickly turned against them as Mussolini had little sympathy for those who were leeching off the state. He coerced (Jailed, tortured even) Mafioso famillies to bring them out of hiding. As a result what the democratic government couldn't achieve a dictatorship did so with extreme success.
Another example: Gandhi's peaceful resistence movement. The success behind his movement layed in the fact that the UK were a parlamentary monarchy which obivously also took into account their own public opinion, thus why the British Indian authorities didn't do anything rash against him. Gandhi himself said Hitler was a successful man (Or something to that effect), imagining it was Hitler's Germany controlling India, do you think Hitler would think twice about executing Gandhi for trying to free one of Hitler's possessions and censuring the press, as well as crushing any rebellion which would spawn following Gandhi's death? I'll give you a real example based on his peaceful resistence. After he died and there was a call for the French and Portuguese enclaves to join with main India, there was a peaceful resistence movement which together with International pressure made France yield Pondicherry to India. On the other hand, Gandhi's followers came to Dictatorship Portuguese India, using their peaceful resistence movement. Since the dictatorship couldn't care less for its own public opinion they massacred the peaceful resistence followers which entered Goa.
Giving examples for oppressive governments based on Democratic actions is wrong since both follow different patterns and lead to different results.
But the hypothesis cannot be proven. As the lawyers say, no further questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I can also give you two examples - the Polish resistance and the French resistance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
About the French resistence, it was done during the World War II. Were Germany never in the war, I can't see how would the resistence topple anything. As a matter of fact, they passed more time running from the Gestapo than doing anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Polish resistence (Against what, the communists or the Germans?) If against the Germans, in peace-time they'd be crushed in a matter of hours (They were crushed even so), since the rest of the army would be readily available instead of being off fighting foreign armies. Against the communists it was a peaceful movement. Had it used weapons it would have been swiftly crushed.
I´m gonna quote my own post to make this as clear as possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
"So if for example you are in a bar and some drunken fool tries to start a fight with you..you would rather him have a gun than not?
I would rather he had no gun and tried to take a swing at me.....I´m not so sure a person in such a condition would "think twice" before pulling a gun."
In my "hypothesis" all I did was describe 2 possible scenarios and ask which one you would rather be in..
this does not require statistics or any other kind of proof to support it....it only requires you to answer honestly.
so?
That's not the point. Why don't we see daily massacres using the registered "destructive devices"? Because if you're going to waste some rival gang, it's far cheaper to get a pistol illegally and it doesn't put you in the headlights of a witchhunt (the "RPG killer" would last maybe a few days).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
It just doesn't make any sense. Criminals don't need high explosives (especially in light of how high-profile fun toys like RPGs would be). Additionally, full-auto Uzi's are already essentially illegal. Gangs still have access to them. Why would a new gun ban be any more effective?Quote:
True. But something tells me that if Anti-tank weaponry would be as readily available in market as there are Uzi's and glocks, something tells me the number of people being killed by those weapons would skyrocket. I certainly wouldn't be surprised in Gang Wars appearing the said Anti-tank weaponry as a means to do splash damage to the opposite gang.
Sorry, I got confused with another gun debate on another forum (:wall:). To address your argument:Quote:
Opposite to my argument? That's funny. My stance is that even pistols shouldn't be available as they are in the USA, although I can understand the basic logic behind having a firearm. My argument in this thread is that there are more than enough types of firearms in the USA able of protecting yourself (Pistols included), so its hard to understand the violent opposition unless you use some kind of out of the blue argument (To other peoples) like (WE NEEDZ ASSAULT RIFLEZ TO KILLZ TEH TYRANTZ!), to which I find odd. Thus they are defending that every citizen, regardless of mental health, ideals and or beliefs (Imagine Neo-Nazi's getting hold of sweet hot brand new Assault Rifles!) is viable to carry firearms which far surpass any limit of common sense I can establish.
Why do you need video games? Or leisure forums? You don't. However, assault rifles are already illegal (because assault rifles are full-auto military rifles), and semi-auto rifles are just not used in crime all that much. In my opinion, the (very) few deaths from semi-auto rifles are worth the freedom to have them - for any reason. Just like we accept the death of thousands in auto accidents every year. Because the freedom to have them - economical and otherwise - is worth it.
True, but even so registered weapons are used often to kill. By users who shouldn't have them because the rules for firearms sales is too loose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Uzi's are illegal? That's news for me. It was surprising to see how easily those guys in the Columbine massacre bought them in the shop just across the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
I can't believe you just compared a leisure forum, to a firearm. That was awesome. Leisure forums can't be used to kill innocent lives (I think). I could live without leisure forums. I can also live without firearms. Even semi-automatic rifles isn't needed to protect oneself. There is no other purpose in a semi-auto rifle then there is in a pistol. It serves to kill and to protect oneself. You can kill much more with a rifle and you won't protect yourself much better with a pistol. Cars have other purposes besides killing. Though your arguments are the soundest I've seen in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
No way mang. Show me some numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Full-auto would be illegal. I don't really know enough about Uzi's specifically to say.Quote:
Uzi's are illegal? That's news for me. It was surprising to see how easily those guys in the Columbine massacre bought them in the shop just across the street.
Most firearms are not used for killing. Are they being misued?
Cars kill more people than guns. We simply can't get rid of either in the US, and another AWB won't change anything.
You say that the value of cars (the other purposes) outweigh the cost in human life they cause. Who are you to say that?
/sorry for the stream of arguments, there's just so many things I want to convey before going to dinner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
See, this is why the argument is going in circles.
You said that the firearms should be banned because they weren't needed.
Atpg pointed out that you can't ban things because they aren't needed. That isn't some dumb argument, it's putting you back at square one. Your reply is that it's ok to ban things that aren't needed if they can kill you. Fine, now atpg can point out the zillions of other objects that can kill people effectively and aren't needed and you'll come up with some new reasoning. It isn't a ridiculous comparison on his part it's a poorly thought out or expressed argument on yours.
But it is irrelevant, and not a realistic or logical argument against firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Answer this one honestly: Your sister's ex-boyfriend has threatened to kill her and you know for a fact that he is headed to her house. Would you rather she had a gun or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
What, you actually think most kills are from people who go off specifically to the black market to buy a gun to kill someone? Look at the Columbine Massacre, those guys bought their guns legally. I tried to look for numbers, but I have no clue where such American statistics lie. You can kill with a registered gun and not be found out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
T'was a Tech 9 or whatever the name is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
What are they used for? Why do the USA have the highest death percentage by firearms if most firearms aren't used for that specific purpose they are built for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Not again... Ending this car comparison stuff, I'd guarantee you 90% of the deaths caused by a car are by accident. What about 90% of the deaths caused by firearms? Why the comparison? The government needs to do something about intentional kills. Heck, even the cars are modified so they are not as lethal as they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
And I didn't say they outweigh anything. Dunno where that came from.
I would not want her to have a gun....having a gun involved in the situation would just elevate the chance of someone getting shot...now wouldn´t it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
as for the hypotethical situation you just described....if I have prior knowledge of where this ex-boyfriend is headed couldn´t this situation just as easily be resolved by calling my hypothetical sister and telling her to leave her house and go to a safe place? and then calling the police and alerting them of the situation?
Cell phones are readily available over here, have great coverage, and most importantly, can´t be used to kill someone.
also...if I can borrow from my previous example....I am not concerned by a drunk guy in a bar brandishing a cellphone at me....
sounds like a win win solution to me.
Edit: Better yet...let´s leave behind this silly sexist example of the "poor damsel in peril".....
I live in an appartment in a major metropolitan area, I am aware that there is a small statistic probability of a bunch of hooligans crashing my door in and trying to kill me...I live with that idea, and I sleep very well, just like I live with the statistic probability that I might get hit by a car tomorrow walking across the street.
I don´t want a gun, I don´t need a gun, and I don´t think a gun would contribute to my safety or those around me, quite the contrary.
Thing is, guns kill effectively and people use them to kill effectively (Since there is no other purpose for weapons). I'm not so sure about the other zillion objects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I absolutely think that most kills are with unregistered firearms. Criminals do the majority of killing with firearms. Why would a criminal register himself with the police? And sure, you can kill with a registered gun and not be found out, but it really hurts your chances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Hunting, sport shooting, home defense, collecting, owning them because you think they're cool.Quote:
What are they used for?
Do you know how many guns we have? You refuse to find statistics but you claim we have this or that death rate. That said, the far majority of firearms in the US are not used for murder.Quote:
Why do the USA have the highest death percentage by firearms if most firearms aren't used for that specific purpose they are built for?
Cars kill quite effectively, as the numbers show. More effectively than firearms, in fact.Quote:
Not again... Ending this car comparison stuff, I'd guarantee you 90% of the deaths caused by a car are by accident. What about 90% of the deaths caused by firearms? Why the comparison? The government needs to do something about intentional kills. Heck, even the cars are modified so they are not as lethal as they are.
And I didn't say they outweigh anything. Dunno where that came from.
Thing is, guns kill effectively and people use them to kill effectively (Since there is no other purpose for weapons). I'm not so sure about the other zillion objects.
No proponent of firearm ownership believes you should be forced to own one, to my knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I don't. If you can find the numbers I didn't manage to find, I'd give you reason. You aren't a criminal until you commit a crime. It wouldn't be hard to imagine myself in a situation where I legally buy a normal registered gun, and in some uncontrolable rage situation (Say some whacko murdered my entire familly to steal a car and I just so happen to know where he was taking the car to) and I grab my gun and go after him to kill him. In the beginning I didn't buy the gun with that specific motive. Thus how "criminals" use registered guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Since I don't know personally how the gun culture is in the USA, I'll just have to presume you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
I didn't refuse. I tried but I just couldn't get what I was looking for since I didn't know where to look. I wasn't gonna spend two hours looking for some numbers about a foreign country's registrated weapons percentage in all homicides, especially when most graphics talk about the total of murders or give or divisions when characterizing the total murder rate, to prove I'm right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
...*facepalm* I'm not sure if you understood my point, but I won't even try this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Anyways, already made my opinion crystal clear. I find useless the legalization of assault rifles as they bring no security for possible more insecurity, when compared to ordinary pistols and firearms.
From the FBI, homicides in the US in '05 was ~14k, 10k involving firearms.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offens...rtable_08.html
According to a survey in '04, there are 93 firearms per 100 Americans. (Obviously that doesn't mean that 93/100 Americans own firearms).
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/...t/full/13/1/15
Lets say both figures are right, and have held basically stable until today. There are ~305M Americans.
So let's say there are .93 * 305M = 283,000,000 firearms in the US (rounding down a bit).
Let's also say that every firearm-related murder was done with a separate firearm.
10,000 firearm homicides / 283,000,000 firearms = .000035 = .0035 % of firearms were used for homicide.
Are 99.0065% of firearms being used incorrectly?
Jesus, 10000 dead in a single year? That's huge. Of course most weaponry aren't being used to kill, but they are used to kill. Noone expected anything near 1% of USA population killed by firearms and 10000 is a gargantuan number nonetheless. Yet don't forget it isn't just about murder, it is about wounds and violent crime. As far as only murder numbers go, 10000 kills in 365 days is brutal. That's 27 people per day, rounded down.
Yeah but most of those are in Baltimore, St Louis and Lawton, Oklahoma, so it's okay.
It depends how you look at the number. How many die in, say...car accidents (~;)) every year?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
US fatalities from auto accidents in '07 was ~41k.
10k isn't all that much when you have 305,000,000 people Jolt. Tragic, sure, but the price we pay.
It is when you compare it to death per population. In the USA, 10000 deaths in a population of 305.000.000 gives you 1 death per 30500 people, while in Canada, using their death by firearms of 2005, which was 816 (Rounded it to 800), in a population of 33.000.000 gives you 1 death per 41250 people. I'm pretty sure USA's higher than most developed countries. That is why it is a garguantuan value. You have a higher chance of getting killed in the USA by firearms than elsewhere. And its a price you're apparently willing to pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
EDIT: In the accidents in the USA, there is one death per 7439 people. In Canada, there is one death per 11785 people. As you can see, the difference between USA and Canada accident deaths is of 4000. In firearms murder, it is 10000. More than double.
It is not because cars kill more. They kill relatively the same in most countries. Its because firearms kills many more in the USA.
That still doesn't take into account the statistic of how many firearms are used in self-defense, in a year that result in fatalities. Those that are not part of those numbers, as that is a murder statistic, not the justifiable shootings that occur.Quote:
From the FBI, homicides in the US in '05 was ~14k, 10k involving firearms.
Hell yes. Registration does nothing to lower crime and only gives the government information that it can, and has, both outside and inside the US, used to confiscate weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
What tells you this? The same voices that tell you about those hypothetical scenarios gun-grabbers always seem to be coming up with but never have any factual evidence of?Quote:
True. But something tells me that if Anti-tank weaponry would be as readily available in market as there are Uzi's and glocks, something tells me the number of people being killed by those weapons would skyrocket.
Then you don't really know much about either.Quote:
I certainly wouldn't be surprised in Gang Wars appearing the said Anti-tank weaponry as a means to do splash damage to the opposite gang.
Hell yes. I hate nazis, but I hate even more the idea of a litmus test for rights.Quote:
Thus they are defending that every citizen, regardless of mental health, ideals and or beliefs (Imagine Neo-Nazi's getting hold of sweet hot brand new Assault Rifles!) is viable to carry firearms which far surpass any limit of common sense I can establish.
You know, maybe some of the people here could come up with something other than fabricated hypothetical scenarios. They prove nothing.
:jawdrop: :wall:Quote:
I would not want her to have a gun....having a gun involved in the situation would just elevate the chance of someone getting shot...now wouldn´t it?
So the chance of the attempted killer getting shot is worse than anything else? The possibility of someone being shot - even if it is the criminal attacker - is so bad that the girl should remain defenseless?
Yes, her having a gun would elevate the chance of the attacker getting shot. That's good, because the other possibility is her getting killed. Now, it seems that you see using a gun - even in defense of an innocent person - as a moral evil, worse than injuring someone in the same way without a gun.
Now, is that correct? Why is that?
CR
That's because John Stossel is awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
CR
I read he caught a lot of flack from some of his colleagues for that story. Typical knee-jerkers.