And? All that goes to show is that the firearms laws don't prevent deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Printable View
And? All that goes to show is that the firearms laws don't prevent deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
uh....? Yes, firearm laws reduce the number of deaths. The reason Brazil has a high murder rate, is that they have two bigger factors at work, namely extreme poverty and corruption. Also, if you as I said took a look at the slums, you'd notice that everyone and their grandmother owns a gun...Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
If you want to compare something, you need a valid comparison. When you're talking about firearm laws and crime, you need to compare two countries that you'd think would have roughly the same crime rate, like britain and the US, for example. You can't compare a wealthy state with a third world country.
No, and Brazil is the perfect example. With strict penalties for having firearms as well as the corruption you mentioned, the ordinary citizen has a more difficult time defending himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Brazil is not a third world country anymore.Quote:
You can't compare a wealthy state with a third world country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...t_2007_(2).svg
Maybe not first world, but certainly not third world.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/...tural-slum.jpg
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TAR1255.jpg
Yes, Brazil is certainly a glorious country...
A high Human Development Index rating is a better indicator of how a country is doing than a few pictures. I saw slums in Costa Rica too (with a higher HDI than Brazil), but it's not really an indicator of how the average person is doing or how happy they are.
No, but we're talking about crime here, and a major part of Brazil's crime comes from the slum areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
It's quite clear that the gun laws in Brazil can't be working...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It's quite clear that the gun laws in Brazil can't be working...
I think its fairly obvious to most people that poverty is the cause of so much crime there rather than gun laws, even if everyone was packing guns the only difference would be a whole lot more killing.
Can anyone explain to me why people keep bringing 3rd world or 2nd in the guess of brazil countries for comparison, the US is going to have less crime than a 3rd world country whether they allowed guns or not, is this really a difficult concept to grab poverty breeds crime, you can justify just about anything if your going to compare america to a third world country.... "ohh look how much richer those americans are than brazilians... having stars on your flag has to have an economic impact, what else could it be ?"
The gun law is irrelevant, since everyone has a gun anyway, and the poverty, corruption and extreme class difference makes crime skyrocket anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Comparing the US with Brazil is even more irrelevant though. Compare the US to countries where you would expect to see the roughly the same crime numbers, ie. western europe.
If gun laws are working like you say, that they increase crime instead of reducing it, then certainly places like britain and norway should have record levels of crime, since the average citizen don't have access to guns to protect themselves, right? But why is it that we don't have those levels of murders then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4368598.stm
Maybe Brazil should invest in a better police force instead of trying to enforce restrictive gun laws?Quote:
If I had the money, I would have a weapon to try to protect myself and my family... The police are never going to arrive in time
EDIT:
How about Canada?
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/4...d-Germany.html
I'd say you can't get a better example than Canada...
EDIT2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
EDIT3:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55288
If you cannot enforce them they can't. I could also say that laws against murder and rape are superfluous and should be abandoned, just look at Africa!!! they do not work, OMG!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
You sound like you're trying to say firearms legislation would not work in the US because basically the US are as corrupt as Brazil and cannot manage to enforce the laws anyway. :dizzy2:
There's not a single law that prevents anything by itself, if you have corruption or no police forces, there's hardly a law that "works".
Alright, I see what you mean. My point is that banning/heavily restricting guns in Brazil is not a good thing. Some of my points on gun laws in America...post #70.
Tribesman, If I took a peanut that was the same size as a .22 caliber projectile; I threw the peanut and you shot the .22 caliber projectilve, would you say that they are the same because they are the same size? Stopping power is totally different between then and, ultimately, that is what determines the difference.
Just curious, but have you ever fired a gun before? If you haven't it wouldn't mean that you couldn't know what you are talking about, but it would be insightful. Being raised in the U.S. you can't really avoid it, but I'm not sure about the Irish.
I think you might have got the wrong thread. ~;)
Bah. All this 'guns are bad' and 'guns are good' stuff just makes me wanna hurl. Let each society choose what's best for them. What works for some may not work for others.
Ex- Japan, with strict laws on gun ownership, has an astonishingly low murders per capita. Switzerland, where, I believe, each resident is actually required to own a rifle, also has an astonishingly low murder rate. :shrug:
And where do you think all of America's gun deaths come from? Middle class folks in the suburbs?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You don't see anywhere near as much violence committed with guns among people who are raised around lots of firearms then you do as urban thugs who know little about firearms.
Evidence? Because in the US, a government study found no evidence to back up such a claim.Quote:
Yes, firearm laws reduce the number of deaths.
Also - tribesy, are you having trouble understanding the difference between a quote and a link?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
The funniest thing has to be tribesy quoting a lazy gun rag writer, though. Seriously, google "gun rag" and the first link that actually lists magazines (the third link) has "Guns and Ammo" right at the top.
Still as wrong as ever :beam: :yes: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Tell me Xiahou , them soldier thingies out in Iraq , what calibre are their rifles ? are they .22 , .22 or.22 ?
CR
Are you still having trouble with the fact that a 22 is a 22 which is a 22 .:yes:Quote:
Also - tribesy, are you having trouble understanding the difference between a quote and a link?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: different stopping power between different .22s doesn't mean they are not .22s the calibre size is determined by the width of the projectile which surprisingly corresponds with the bore of the barrel of the firearm which makes the gun a .22 .Quote:
Tribesman, If I took a peanut that was the same size as a .22 caliber projectile; I threw the peanut and you shot the .22 caliber projectilve, would you say that they are the same because they are the same size? Stopping power is totally different between then and, ultimately, that is what determines the difference.
Guns ? me ? no never , guns are evil , bullets are the spawn of satan:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: For an answer why not try one of the many other gun topics on this forum , for a good laugh see if you can find the one where rabbit claims that gun ownership is illegal in Ireland ...which of course if true would mean that I am a criminal :yes:Quote:
Just curious, but have you ever fired a gun before? If you haven't it wouldn't mean that you couldn't know what you are talking about, but it would be insightful. Being raised in the U.S. you can't really avoid it, but I'm not sure about the Irish.
No, I think that he, being a gun owner and user, understands what a .22 round is. I also think he understands a .22 is not a .223 or a 5.56x45mm NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Yes, quite. I own a .22 rifle, and I assure you people would look at me as though I weretriban idiot if I called a .223 rifle a .22.
But it's clear that tribesy believes, laws of physics and man notwithstanding, what he posts. He can't defend anything, so he just launches into new absurd quips. The sad thing is his inability to learn when he's wrong. :shame: :no:
Oh, tribesy, hows about a link to where I said all guns are banned in Ireland? And not just N. Ireland.
CR
You're saying that some areas of the US are like the slums of Brazil, with the same poverty, number of orphans, utterly corrupt police force and government, etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
If so, I'd say you have more important things to care about than gun laws.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Oh, tribesy, hows about a link to where I said all guns are banned in Ireland? And not just N. Ireland.
well Rabbit that would have been even worse , because if you remember the gun nut weekly article you linked used murders from the troubles in the 6 counties and added them to the republic to show that the republic had a real big problem with gun crime . Perhaps you will remember as well that N.Ireland has different gun laws than the rest of the UK , you know laws where even people with a very dodgy criminal past can apply for a firearm licence and get one .
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
No, I think that he, being a gun owner and user, understands what a .22 round is.
So you are saying that a 223 isn't a .22 calibre round and the basis of that is because it has a bigger more powerful cartridge .
So let me get this straight before I have a big laugh at your expense .
A round that has a bullet calibre of .224 isn't a .22 because of the size of the cartridge and the amount and type of propellant the cartridge contains ?
Oh my is it time for a link ?:inquisitive:
Here you go then kids , I hope you enjoyed the ride to pwnage .
http://www.reedsammo.com/Page.html
Please take note of the words .22 cal on the box of bullets , also take note of the size of the bullet which at .224 is the same as the bullet in the 223 , note also the fact that they is big fat catridges that look nothing like an LR .:2thumbsup:
Now of course an ammunition manufacturer might be getting it all wrong , after all I doubt they know much about guns and stuff and I am sure they will bow down before your wisdom and change their business practices:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I live in North-East London and teenage gangs are rife, now not everybody have guns but it's easy to get access to knifes. The division between races and more ridiculously post-codes is getting more evident. and it's no longer safe for a young person to walk around a different neighboroughood alone or even with friends. Things are even worse in south London, and I don't see what the government doing now is improving the situation.
It's America, every complicated issue gets boiled down a simple question with 2 extremes, "If we ban all guns violent crime will go down as the criminals won't be armed", "no, no if everyone gets a gun, then the law bidding citizens will shoot all the scared criminals, who will stop comitting crimes".Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Talking about more advanced soci-economic factors will be ridiculed and ignored.
Or to put it differently the question is not "Should I buy a gun for self-defence or not?" But "Why should I even need to consider buying a gun in the first place?"
But since I'm a liberal tree-hugging, gun-hating, pinko-commie who thinks that all prisoners should be released because "it's not thier fault, but society's fault" my opinion can safetly be ignored and all the violent crimes in the US can be explained due tothe lack ofguns. :logic:
And for the boring ammo discussion.
It's gun restrictions or "de facto" gun-bans, not gun bans.
While the .223 is technically a .22(X), the terminology isn't used, to separate the obvious different sizes and avoid confusion.
And assult rifles are appearently banned in Mexico (I don't red Spanish and trust Redleg enough).
Discussion settled. Capiche?
Edit: Quintus, because they got knives, the situation is still better compared to if they get guns and I suspect one of the reasons the debate in the US is so singleminded. To put it simply:
Guns are a neutral enhancer, gangs are bad and guns+gangs are really bad. People seems to mix that up.
Now I dont think I said that assualt rifles are banned - I know from reading the Mexican law that any weapon of .223 is for the exclusive use of the Mexician Military. Now I am sure if I read the whole law, and confirm it with a translation program to verify I am right, that the law indeed states assualt rifles are banned, but I haven't read that far into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
But I am sure about the .223 portion though - that round and all weapons of that caliber are for the exclusive use of the military according to how I read the provided link.
More like "Irony wins again" :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
What confuses many people on ammunition is that there is one distinct difference from what most people view as a .22 calibre round and what is in the family of .22 calibre. .22LR which most people equate to a .22 calibre round is a rim fire round, which does not require the firing pin to contact a specific point on the round. These rounds are often smaller in the number of powder grains included in the round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
.222 and above are indeed .22 calibre rounds, there main distinction is that they are primarily of a centerfire type. Centerfire allows for a more consistent burning of the powder which also allows for more powder being included in the round. Makes for a faster bullet, which requires for some other modifications to the round versus the standard soft lead of the .22 calibre rimfire.
In short, Tribesman is correct any round with the .22 at the beginning of the calibre is indeed a .22 calibre round be it a .222, .223, .224 or any of the many variants of the .22. The key in ammunition is the first two digits of the calibre on small arms amunnition - it establishes the overall calibre family of the ammunition. It doesn't make all ammunition equal within the catergory, only that they fall within the same calibre range.
I rather enjoyed it, however you did make one error in your arguement about .22 calibres being allowed into Mexico.Quote:
Oh my is it time for a link ?:inquisitive:
Here you go then kids , I hope you enjoyed the ride to pwnage .
So lets just recap .
Quote:
You really dont know anything about guns do you?
Quote:
You are completely and utterly wrong.
Quote:
you shouldn't be in this thread, but sit quietly and try to learn something.
Quote:
you are the one talking bollox.
Quote:
22s are only useful for paper targets and squirrels/rabbits.
Quote:
The US forces use .223 caliber bullets - can you see how that's different? Because it's a different number?
Quote:
The cartridge on the right is a 22, the one on the left which you claim to be a 22 is NOT.
Quote:
you don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to guns and ammunition.
Quote:
Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
Tribes is completely out of his depth here
Quote:
.22 is not an umbrella term that fits a .223 or a .224 caliber.
Quote:
are you being ignorant or obtuse?
Quote:
No, I think that he, being a gun owner and user, understands what a .22 round is.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Still as wrong as ever
In short, Tribesman is correct
I learned something today.
Wow, I leave you boys for a weekend, and my attempt at a sociological discussion derails into a ridiculous argument about gun calibres? Seriously, guys. Shame.
Now, to settle the issue once and for all, yes, assault rifles are banned in Mexico, just as any other weapons capable of burst fire and full automatic modes, so leave that question alone.
Ironside raises the important issue here in my opinion. Would you say that the trust of US citizens in their own police force is so low, that they feel they must supplement the police?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
My admiration for policework in the UK has been slowly eroded over the past years, but I still admire that they dare do their job without firearms.
I do understand that there are circumstances where a gun is needed, like rural settings, and rare self-defence cases, however, these cases are few and far-between.
I do also believe, that with fewer guns on the streets, the work of police would be much simplified, their lives made less threatened, and therefore their procedures would become less violent, which would also lead to fewer indiscriminate shooting by police, and give them more self confidence to do their job without fear. Which in turn might lead to lower crime rates as police efficiency would be increased, and so would their morale.
Now, I think the argument that guns are necessary to repel the government is a pile of cr*p, and self-defence situations where a gun might have been necessary for ONE of the parties are not so many as to justify its use by BOTH parties. Why do we always imagine the gun in the hands of the victim? What about the attacker?
And of government studies linking guns to crime. Of course nothing will be found. How many people does gun business employ? Could the economy absorb it if half of them were unemployed? How much money does the government get from taxing guns?
So unless you can show me an independent study done by non-US researchers in a foreign country about the situation in the US, I will not take that argument.
Well here is one to think about Swordsmaster .
Calls by certain parties for the Irish police to be armed .
Now given that their job puts them in dodgy situations where they can often be outnumbered and face people armed with a variety of weapons surely they should be leading the call for them to be armed because according to some people on this forum being armed with a gun is a great equailiser when you have to defend yourself in those situations .
Yet at all levels from the very top down through the inspectors and sergeants representatives all the way to the rank and file groups they all strongly oppose any suggestion that the routine issue of firearms to the police is a good idea.