Check this anti gun bullshit out.

[MMATycoon]

It has not been proven wrong,..as a matter of fact I have posted many stats, proving that it gets worse, you have yet to sway me. I have said that it doesnt work 1 time, and posted many graphs showing that it gets worse. Australia is the only time that it is different and it has been shown by cross checking against New Zealand that it wasnt the gun ban that caused it. Australia has never had a homicide problem, but after the gun ban, robbery and sexual assault went up and it took 8 years to come back down.

Everything that I have looked at is showing me that with more guns there is less crime (less victims)

 

http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/january2013/070113graph2.gifhttp://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/me520646ed.gif

http://www.americanconservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MGLC.jpg

 

Law-abiding gun owners use their firearms to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2.5 million times per year, or 6,850 times each day. Of this number, less than 8% will kill or wound their attacker. The mere presence of the firearm is usually enough to stop the crime in progress.

 

Those are two graph lines / bars stuck on the same graph paper.... It doesn't mean the two things have anything to do with eachother.

 

All that red / green graph shows is that.

A. More people own guns.

B. There have been less violent crimes.

It does not state that the two points have anything to do with eachother.

 

That's one of the main problems when people try and prove something with statistics. Often there is no concept of cause and effect and other external factors.

 

IMO, the main factors in the decrease in violent crimes are;

1. The general increase in intelligence of people and the general development of society.

2. More freely available information, the increase in general empathy due to better global communications.

3. Improved crime and forensic methods, so people both get locked up more quickly and can't keep re-offending as easily. And B get put off doing crimes in the first place, cos they know they'll get caught.

 

So, in my opinion you are much better off putting this graph up against violent crimes, as a cause and effect.

 

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz88xhU3so1qi2cym.jpg

 

But in general, there are masses and masses of variables that apply to violent crime, so just putting any two values next to eachother and claiming there's a direct cause and effect is nonsense.

 

Not to mention, this is reported violent crime. In e.g. the 1970/80s/90s, people were much less likely to report e.g domestic abuse, rape, assault. Cases of these crimes have more than likely decreased since then but the stats may well tell you they have increased, because people report them more.

 

ANYWAY! I posted that you were deflecting from the issue by constantly referring to crime statistics and ignoring the proposition that massacres would be vastly reduced if guns were removed from the general population and you went straight back to talking about violent crime... pretty clear cut dodge of a direct question.

 

If removing guns has zero impact either way on violent crime but massively reduces the mass slaughter of innocent children, isn't that a good enough reason?

[clydebankblitz]

[Kanis]

Here is ONE positive thing ,....unless suppressed (not a lot of the guns in this country are) If it is used in ANY situation, It draws a lot of attention.

aka : you dont just casually shoot someone down the street without people hearing it,..and strangely enough, it does factor in to how some people will behave. With knives being the weapon of choice,..they are silent and will happen more. ( in reference to some of those problems that England is or was having)

 

*I* think the Public shootings are isolated ( maybe even, staged) events. Very soon I would expect to hear a news report similar to this:
"1 lone gunman entered a mall in *blah, blah, blah*, today killing 2 (who had tried to reason with the man) before being gunned down himself by a 43 year-old house-wife ." Later stating in an interview that " she is SO thankful that her husband took her to the range and taught her how to use the gun properly so she could carry it"
and adding " Gosh , I was just here getting some flip-flops and lotion".

 

 

9 1/2 times out of 10 , in a conflict , I am a peaceful man. (personally I dont carry a firearm)

But if you look around

That really good looking guy at the gym that is so manly and intense? He's really insecure and has no friends

That beautiful woman standing in front of you in line at the grocery store? She's got really low self esteem and doesn't think she's pretty at all because she has an abusive boyfriend

Your boss at work that is so good at what he does but is the biggest a**hole ever? His wife treats him like dirt, and his children are abusing drugs and in trouble with the law

Your best friend that is so popular and gets all the attention from the opposite sex? His parents have been telling him he was a mistake for as long as he can remember and he thinks he is not good enough to be loved......

We are all just people, trying to make it through the day

It doesn't matter what you have, what you do, or where you came from....

We are all just people wanting to be happy and be loved

Remember that....when you are angry, when you are sad, when they attack you, when they hate on you, when they try to destroy you

They too, are just people

Love is Always the Lesson
Love is the Answer
Love is the Way

 

When, other than that, is forced on someone (anyone) that is why we stay armed. (and when I say WE, I mean the Public of America, and not the Government of America) I understand that our Government has smeared a lot of sh!t around this planet,..but dont think that we support or condone it , we dont like it either.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Kanis

[ArtieBanks]

I just wanted to post this to K-Rad without quoting him.

 

 

That was a thing of beauty, thank you.

 

According to all the facts and figures around i live in a place that is twinned with Somalia. If anything i personally should be the person to carry a weapon, i don't. I lived during my college days in a place called the Gorbals which i think was the worst slum in Britain at one point. The Clyde Bridge at night is notorious as it does no have any street lights and homeless people are known to sleep under the bridge. There are warnings handed out to everyone when they first go to the college to avoid that area at night and during the day time only travel that route in groups of at least four. The people that got attacked, were the people who went to that area usually at night.

 

During my time there did i actually feel threatened. Two junkie looking guys i caught a glimpse of following me (they had to be following me since i was out jogging and i had just done a lap around the college.) I just headed for the main road and jogged in the street lights back to my flat and got in, no harm, no foul. A bit of common sense goes a long way to being safe.

[clydebankblitz]

I just wanted to post this to K-Rad without quoting him.

 

 

That was a thing of beauty, thank you.

 

According to all the facts and figures around i live in a place that is twinned with Somalia. If anything i personally should be the person to carry a weapon, i don't. I lived during my college days in a place called the Gorbals which i think was the worst slum in Britain at one point. The Clyde Bridge at night is notorious as it does no have any street lights and homeless people are known to sleep under the bridge. There are warnings handed out to everyone when they first go to the college to avoid that area at night and during the day time only travel that route in groups of at least four. The people that got attacked, were the people who went to that area usually at night.

 

During my time there did i actually feel threatened. Two junkie looking guys i caught a glimpse of following me (they had to be following me since i was out jogging and i had just done a lap around the college.) I just headed for the main road and jogged in the street lights back to my flat and got in, no harm, no foul. A bit of common sense goes a long way to being safe.

 

Got malkied for the first time up in the Gorbals. Still got the scar now 12 years later. Good times

[Madness]

The only people talking about Obama having a 3rd term is right wing radio. I have not heard anyone on the left even suggest it. This is the type of conspiracy theory crap that worries me when we are in the middle of a gun discussion. It makes you guys sound unhinged. It is pretty clear Clinton and Sanders are racing to replace him. No one is trying to increase term limits.

 

As for the debate at hand... Instead of looking at guns per capita you should check out % of households with guns. I have neighbors with well over 50 guns each. One was bragging he had bough 14 more so he would be ready to shoot Obama when he came to take his guns. Ignoring the fact that Obama hasn't made any attempt to ban guns and if he did I doubt he would be the one to show up at your door I was just wondering how many guns his 2 hands could shoot at one time. In the Marines I only needed 2 guns. My M16 and a 9mil for up close or if it jammed. Having 14 would have done nothing to make me safer, because I only have 2 hands. All I needed were extra magazines to re-load. Anyways, I got off the point. In America if you look at households with guns per capita instead of total guns you get a very different picture. The 5 safest states have the lowest rate of gun ownership, and the 5 most dangerous have the highest rate. My state last I checked was #6 when it came to gun ownership and the #7 in homicide rate. That was a couple of years ago, but I doubt much has changed with all the meth coming in recently.

 

As for crime the single largest indicator is poverty. Comparing the US crime rate to any country with a much higher poverty rate is simply cooking the books. Even here all the cities that are used as examples of crime like Detroit or Chicago ( though there is also more to those stories we don't have time to get into ) it is more because the obscenely high poverty rate than anything else. Every study on the subject always comes to the same conclusion.

[Kanis]

I dont want to get this stirred up again, bit I did find something interesting about the mass shootings

http://worldtruth.tv/nearly-every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-one-thing-in-common-and-it-isnt-weapons/

[MMATycoon]

So what's your point dude? That people on "powerful psychotropic drugs" found it really easy to get their hands on heavy duty firearms?

[Kanis]

DUDE ?!? the drugs are being perscribed, a lot

[MMATycoon]

yes, and?

[Guest]

I like how your link cites 1 source, which is "ammoland.com".

Abusing drugs is obviously bad and obviously part of why they commited murders in the first place. The availability of firearms was what made it possible in the first place, though.

[MMATycoon]

That link is just another case of a complete lack of cause and effect.

 

Of course, SOMETIMES people get prescribed drugs they don't need. However, if you're getting prescribed anti psychotics, that's because you're having psychotic episodes. It's not the drugs that cause them; in the vast majority of cases, the drugs will help significantly in LIMITING psychotic episodes and DECREASING the chance of these people committing violence. Drugs don't stop all episodes though and if someone's got a serious condition and then commits physical violence or worse, by definition, they're pretty much certain to be on some sort of medication.

 

To say the medication is the cause though, is nonsense. It's equally as accurate to say "all these people relaxed on their sofa and calmed down, therefore relaxing and calming down on your sofa causes you to go out and kill people".

[Kanis]

the same can be said that having a gun available is what causes the person to commit the crime.

 

I have more understanding for what you are saying.

 

 

As darkness drew in last night violence broke out in so many parts of London that it began to read like an A to Z of the capital. Peckham, Ladbroke Grove, Ealing, Catford, Chalk Farm, East Dulwich, Bethnal Green, Lewisham, Clapham and Croydon – where one person was shot and wounded – were all affected. In Hackney police fought for much of the day with rioters who hurled shopping trolleys, bins and pieces of concrete at officers, and set fire to vehicles.

Trails of destruction were left wherever rioters and looters congregated. Police pleaded for people to keep off the streets, and the acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Tim Godwin, asked parents to "contact your children" to make sure they weren't rioting or watching the violence. The plea came amid reports that a boy of 11, suspected of burglary, was among those arrested.

Nor was the violence confined just to London. Rioters rampaged through the centre of Birmingham during the evening and later an unmanned police station was set alight in the Handsworth district of the city. At least nine arrests were made in Birmingham. There were outbreaks of violence in Leeds and Liverpool. A Merseyside Police spokesman said early this morning that there were "a number of isolated ooutbreaks of disorder."

 

I am glad that they werent armed.

[MMATycoon]

Nobody says having a gun causes anyone to commit a crime... it enables you to commit a crime. Cause and enable are very different things.

 

verb: cause;

1.

make (something, especially something bad) happen.

verb: enable;

1.

give (someone) the authority or means to do something; make it possible for.

[Kanis]

A predator is a predator with or without a firearm.

A victim is less a victim and maybe a deterrent with a firearm.

Less victims = less crime

When the *bad guy* no longer carries them, THEN I will give mine up.

Until that time , I will have mine.

MOST criminals investigate a target area and will pick one that has NO opposition.

look, I am not here to argue with a game admin on this,..you have a nice day.

[clydebankblitz]

Take away the rocket arm and camo and The Predator doesn't become that dangerous.

[GBK16]

Sure, they might be criminals if they don't have a firearm still, but there is sure of a hell lot less chance of a fatality if they don't have a firearm.

[kenlow73]

Criminals get what they want, take away guns and they'll still get them. It's like addicts, if drugs are illegal, why do addicts still get them?

[Timmy]

Criminals get what they want, take away guns and they'll still get them. It's like addicts, if drugs are illegal, why do addicts still get them?

 

I'd like to see one of your American killers like Dylann Roof buy a gun in the UK. If he were a British 21 year old loser he would have a great deal of difficulty. Firstly, just trying to find one and some ammo would more likely get him arrested than armed. Secondly, he would need a substantial amount of cash. Thirdly, he would probably simply get ripped off for that cash when the word was out that "some idiot kid with money is looking for a gun".

It might be different if he was a hardcore criminal who's spent half his life in prison and knows people, but most of these spree killings you have in the USA are done by loner/weirdo/loser nobodys. If they couldn't simply walk into a shop or gunshow and buy one legally that might be start, don't you think?

[PBR]

 

I'd like to see one of your American killers like Dylann Roof buy a gun in the UK. If he were a British 21 year old loser he would have a great deal of difficulty. Firstly, just trying to find one and some ammo would more likely get him arrested than armed. Secondly, he would need a substantial amount of cash. Thirdly, he would probably simply get ripped off for that cash when the word was out that "some idiot kid with money is looking for a gun".

It might be different if he was a hardcore criminal who's spent half his life in prison and knows people, but most of these spree killings you have in the USA are done by loner/weirdo/loser nobodys. If they couldn't simply walk into a shop or gunshow and buy one legally that might be start, don't you think?

 

well one issue is he wasn't suppose to buy one legally -- our government didn't do their job on the background check -- they have noted this now and said that they messed up and didn't note his arrest of drug possession -- so while yea he bought it legally the reason was cause the government didn't do their job (in which they cry for more intense extensive background checks but dont do their job now) -- so to me its sort of the governments fault

[kenlow73]

 

I'd like to see one of your American killers like Dylann Roof buy a gun in the UK. If he were a British 21 year old loser he would have a great deal of difficulty. Firstly, just trying to find one and some ammo would more likely get him arrested than armed. Secondly, he would need a substantial amount of cash. Thirdly, he would probably simply get ripped off for that cash when the word was out that "some idiot kid with money is looking for a gun".

It might be different if he was a hardcore criminal who's spent half his life in prison and knows people, but most of these spree killings you have in the USA are done by loner/weirdo/loser nobodys. If they couldn't simply walk into a shop or gunshow and buy one legally that might be start, don't you think?

If they wanted to kill bad enough they wouldn't have to buy a gun no matter where they lived. They're criminals, all they have to do is steal a gun.

[Erik]

If they wanted to kill bad enough they wouldn't have to buy a gun no matter where they lived. They're criminals, all they have to do is steal a gun.

 

How successful do you think someone like Roof (let alone someone like Adam Lanza or James Holmes) would be at stealing a gun in a country like the UK or Australia where there are relatively few around and most are well secured.

 

The answer, based on a sheer lack of gun massacres is not very.

[kenlow73]

 

How successful do you think someone like Roof (let alone someone like Adam Lanza or James Holmes) would be at stealing a gun in a country like the UK or Australia where there are relatively few around and most are well secured.

 

The answer, based on a sheer lack of gun massacres is not very.

If they wanted one, they could get one no matter where. Bring me to the UK, I'll show you how easy getting a gun is.

[Guest]

The only real statistic that matters in this debate is the direct correlation between people's access to firearms and firearm-related murders. You can cherry pick all you want and still won't get away from that one.

[Guest]

If they wanted one, they could get one no matter where. Bring me to the UK, I'll show you how easy getting a gun is.

 

99:1 - or higher - odds you end up in jail first.