guns and bullets

dunkman

HeidiJam wrote:

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

FACT: In Japan, the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 each year by weapons other than firearms.

* United Nations data


Therefore, if all of the firearms in the U.S. could magically be eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of Japan.

all this proves is that you murder people a lot more than Japan using something OTHER than a gun.

FACT: firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population in one year in the USA is 10.2. In Japan it is 0.07 per 100,000 population.




see? all your showing me is that Japan is doing something right.

Great job ignoring all the other facts... The point is that violent crimes happen, taking away guns from law abiding citizens will only do more damage. Whats your plan then?

"The point is that violent crimes happen, taking away guns from law abiding citizens will only do more damage."

thats supposition... you have no idea if that would be the case... you're making shit up.



as for your facts...

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries

A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States. Of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and 3%, as intention undetermined. The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined (1.66 compared with 0.14) (Table_1). The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04). For all countries, males accounted for most of the firearm-related homicides (67%), firearm-related suicides (77%), and unintentional firearm-related deaths (89%). The nonfirearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly four times the rate in all of the other countries (1.63 compared with 0.45), and nonfirearm-related suicide rates were similar in the United States and in all of the other countries combined (0.23 compared with 0.24).

Reported by: Div of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.




simple FACT is you guys loving killing each other... you are the best at it... GO USA! GO USA! USA FTW at child deaths!!! woop woop :thumbup:

UpSideDown

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I believe that there is no 100% complete and utopic solution.

I agree with this.

pandora

dunkman wrote:

pandora wrote:

There are few troubled times more troubling than now.
If you trust those in power you may see within your lifetime the error in your ways,
this, I hope, will not come to be.

Yoda?

are you suggesting that if i trsut my democratically elected government I may see the error of my ways?

some of you need to get a reality check...

thats exactly what I am suggesting
and I hope it is me who will need the reality check
because then peace and freedom will prevail

dunkman

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I also believe in citizens being armed in the (unlikely) event that the government DOES go well beyond its allowable use of force-- this also goes for any foreign country who might attempt an occupation on our soil-- again, unlikely, but I see it as a deterrent against aggression, and an insurance policy.

my issue with this is that it is never ever going to happen... an armed militia of a few thousand going up against the might of the US? never ever going to happen.

you will never ever be invaded either... unless its by China... and i don't think they'll be that bothered by 8000 slightly disorganised fat guys who have been in a gun club for 4 years.

Godfather.

ed243421 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

dunkman wrote:

it'd be a fuckload easier if all the pathetic limp wristed gun owners just met up one sunny day in somewhere like Idaho or Iowa and just had a massive cockfight to the death... save us all the frustration and sadness of hearing of yet another maniac going on the rampage.


and when will people get over the kitchen knife/baseball bat/hammers kill people argument???? it's the argumentative equivalent of a 4 year old retard saying "yellow" every time his carer asks him the colour of the sky.

you can piss and moan about guns all you want...but they will NEVER go away.
it might be a fuckload easier if limp wristed pathetic cry babies would just stop whining like a bunch of pre-teen spoiled brats who have zero understanding of the words freedom and rights..other than their right to snivel about issues they have ZERO understanding of, have a nice day.

Godfather.

g
you
snivel about issues you have ZERO understanding of
every day
plese try to not be so hypocritical of other people's opinions

I will if you will.

Godfather.

81

bow and arrow? what are they designed to do? oh yeah.

dunkman

81 wrote:

bow and arrow? what are they designed to do? oh yeah.

hunt animals for food actually... whereas guns were designed solely for the battlefield... i.e. killing other humans.

eyedclaar

Wait, there's gonna be a big shoot-out in Idaho somewhere? Count me in. I'm probably about the only gun owner who finds himself agreeing with Dunk. Probably because I think most gun owners are complete morons.

wolfamongwolves

When things like this have happened in other countries (Dunk's, for example), the reaction has been to remove the guns from the equation, and the result has been, it hasn't happened again. That to me makes sense. If dangerous people can easily get their hands on guns, and you don't know until they've got one that they are dangerous, then surely it stands to reason that reducing the enabling environment for such lethal flashpoints, by tighter regulation, or by removing the guns altogether, will reduce the killing.

So I never can comprehend why the US, and it seems only the US, reacts in diametric opposition to that logic, and somehow reaches the counter-intuitive conclusion that to prevent gun deaths, you need more guns and less regulation. It just fuels the fire that just keeps on burning... That twisted reasoning is so horrendously irresponsible, so obviously dangerous. It is the same logical fallacy that kept the world on a knife-edge during the cold war. It was counter-productive then, and it's counter-productive now. No supposed "right" is worth the risk it entails.

Pandora says that the US is an infant compared to the rest of the world. I agree, and it is well past time that it grew up.

Godfather.

dunkman wrote:

81 wrote:

bow and arrow? what are they designed to do? oh yeah.

hunt animals for food actually... whereas guns were designed solely for the battlefield... i.e. killing other humans.

:crazy: is that it ?....weak.

Godfather.

Blockhead

wolfamongwolves wrote:

When things like this have happened in other countries (Dunk's, for example), the reaction has been to remove the guns from the equation, and the result has been, it hasn't happened again. That to me makes sense. If dangerous people can easily get their hands on guns, and you don't know until they've got one that they are dangerous, then surely it stands to reason that reducing the enabling environment for such lethal flashpoints, by tighter regulation, or by removing the guns altogether, will reduce the killing.

So I never can comprehend why the US, and it seems only the US, takes the diametrically opposed reation to that logic and somehow reaches the conclusion that to prevent gun deaths, you need more guns and less regulation. It just fuels the fire that just keeps on burning... That twisted reasoning is so horrendously irresponsible, so obviously dangerous. It is the same logical fallacy that kept the world on a knife-edge during the cold war. It was counter-productive then, and it's counter-productive now. To say nothing of counter-intuitive. No supposed "right" is worth the risk.

Pandora says that the US is an infant compared to the rest of the world. I agree, but it is well past time that it grew up.

Well maybe look at the US stats on areas where there were tighter gun control/ laws and you will see that the gun crimes RISE... You people need to start using logic. If you take guns away from law abiding citizens then they have no way of protecting themselves. Criminals are not going to follow gun laws, well because they are criminals. There will always be a blackmarket for guns. Taking them away from everybody will only entice more gun crime beccause criminals will know citizens won't be armed. How hard is that to figure out.

dunkman

Godfather. wrote:

dunkman wrote:

81 wrote:

bow and arrow? what are they designed to do? oh yeah.

hunt animals for food actually... whereas guns were designed solely for the battlefield... i.e. killing other humans.

:crazy: is that it ?....weak.

Godfather.

was it about as weak as using a 300 year old piece of paper to justify having a metal cock?

and your style of debate is weaker even that that... it's the most one-sided argument i've ever had... it's like you're bringing a plastic spatula to my AK-47 gunfight

Godfather.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

When things like this have happened in other countries (Dunk's, for example), the reaction has been to remove the guns from the equation, and the result has been, it hasn't happened again. That to me makes sense. If dangerous people can easily get their hands on guns, and you don't know until they've got one that they are dangerous, then surely it stands to reason that reducing the enabling environment for such lethal flashpoints, by tighter regulation, or by removing the guns altogether, will reduce the killing.

So I never can comprehend why the US, and it seems only the US, takes the diametrically opposed reation to that logic and somehow reaches the conclusion that to prevent gun deaths, you need more guns and less regulation. It just fuels the fire that just keeps on burning... That twisted reasoning is so horrendously irresponsible, so obviously dangerous. It is the same logical fallacy that kept the world on a knife-edge during the cold war. It was counter-productive then, and it's counter-productive now. To say nothing of counter-intuitive. No supposed "right" is worth the risk.

Pandora says that the US is an infant compared to the rest of the world. I agree, but it is well past time that it grew up.

Germany had gun control (or ban) before the second world war I think ? look at what happened to a people that had no way to protect them selfs.

Godfather.

VINNY GOOMBA

dunkman wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I also believe in citizens being armed in the (unlikely) event that the government DOES go well beyond its allowable use of force-- this also goes for any foreign country who might attempt an occupation on our soil-- again, unlikely, but I see it as a deterrent against aggression, and an insurance policy.

my issue with this is that it is never ever going to happen... an armed militia of a few thousand going up against the might of the US? never ever going to happen.

you will never ever be invaded either... unless its by China... and i don't think they'll be that bothered by 8000 slightly disorganised fat guys who have been in a gun club for 4 years.

China may not be bothered by 8,000 slightly disorganized fat guys in the gun club. True. However, it would be much more than that, and you cannot discount the efforts of guerilla style warriors with minimal weaponry (but weaponry nonetheless) against some major powers in history:

The American Revolution
Vietnam
Modern Day Afghanistan

The latter of the 2 were / are against the "mighty" US Armed forces-- in both cases the US faired less than favorably.

As for the US Government being a threat to its own citizens, there are enough provisions on the books that in the case of a complete collapse, economic or otherwise (or even less-so, since everyone in the world knows that our government tends to over-react when faced with crisis), that martial law is a very REAL scenario, here. And as for who is actually armed in this country, there are far more than you think. It is the number of people who carry a weapon that is not such a great number. Rifles and shotguns for hunting and sporting purposes are fairly abundant even here in New York.

As for these American Apocolyptic scenarios, I did say unlikely, but not impossible. I do not fear China-- depsite their size and might, they are not stupid, and do not want to upset relations with their best trading partner. Again, neither country has to like each other, but as long as there are opportunites for peaceful trade, violence is less than likely.

I don't think you have much to worry about or much need for arms up there in Castle Fuckula

unsung

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Aren't you the one who always claims that if people were allowed to carry guns things like the Arizona shooting wouldn't happen? Well? Arizona allows concealed weapons so how does that philosophy hold up today?

No, I've said states that enact concealed carry have a reduction in violent crime. Nothing is absolute. A complete ban on guns does not work either. Dozens of kids were killed each year in Chicago, when there was a handgun ban.

dunkman

Godfather. wrote:

Germany had gun control (or ban) before the second world war I think ? look at what happened to a people that had no way to protect them selfs.

Godfather.

totally fucking laughable... did you find the Moving Train by accident? did you think it was a forum for people who like to go travelling but couldnt drive due to a low IQ?

unsung

eMMI wrote:

Ultimately, the right to bear arms shouldn't be a right at all. :think:

Ultimately any change will never happen. And if there were to be change the entire Constitution could be gutted.

Godfather.

dunkman are you from the USA ? if not then how could you possibly understand and if you are, that 300 year old piece of paper guaranteed our freedom...along with guns. so really.. run off and bitch about your own country or shut up. have a nice day.

Godfather.

Blockhead

dunkman wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

Germany had gun control (or ban) before the second world war I think ? look at what happened to a people that had no way to protect them selfs.

Godfather.

totally fucking laughable... did you find the Moving Train by accident? did you think it was a forum for people who like to go travelling but couldnt drive due to a low IQ?

Your rebuttal is fucking laughable... You act as if guns committ all crimes. Violent people commit violent acts, why is it an issue of what weapon is used??? You have done nothing but voice your OPINION. You have stated no Facts and No Plan. You opinion is to take away all guns from people, Is that going to stop violence??? NO, it will cause more violence because criminals will always access to guns. So now you want a society where criminals have guns and citizens have, well nothing to protect themselves. Great Fucking Plan...

cincybearcat

dunkman wrote:

it'd be a fuckload easier if all the pathetic limp wristed gun owners just met up one sunny day in somewhere like Idaho or Iowa and just had a massive cockfight to the death... save us all the frustration and sadness of hearing of yet another maniac going on the rampage.


and when will people get over the kitchen knife/baseball bat/hammers kill people argument???? it's the argumentative equivalent of a 4 year old retard saying "yellow" every time his carer asks him the colour of the sky.

Why do you hate Idaho and Iowa?