Has anyone pointed out that the UK has a fraction of our population? Then look at Mexico..also has a gun ban, their crime rate is insane. You can't compare any 2 countries cos each has it's own mix of factors in play.
Everyone's attacking mental illness, or some characiture of a backwoods Southerner gripping his gun, neither of which are the real source behind our high gun crime rates..It's not about how many guns there are..the 3 states with the highest gun ownership also have the lowest amount of gun crime. On the other hand, the city with a total ban, Chicago, has the highest crime rate in the nation. Same could be said of D.C. when it had it's total ban.
Put better programs, and more importantly, better jobs, in the poorest areas and gun crime will drop. Britain doesn't have too many ghettos like we do, so why is it shocking they don't have gun crime like we do?
Has anyone pointed out that the UK has a fraction of our population? Then look at Mexico..also has a gun ban, their crime rate is insane. You can't compare any 2 countries cos each has it's own mix of factors in play.
Everyone's attacking mental illness, or some characiture of a backwoods Southerner gripping his gun, neither of which are the real source behind our high gun crime rates..It's not about how many guns there are..the 3 states with the highest gun ownership also have the lowest amount of gun crime. On the other hand, the city with a total ban, Chicago, has the highest crime rate in the nation. Same could be said of D.C. when it had it's total ban.
Put better programs, and more importantly, better jobs, in the poorest areas and gun crime will drop. Britain doesn't have too many ghettos like we do, so why is it shocking they don't have gun crime like we do?
Love this. When I first saw it my first thought was that I'd never found Piers Morgan so likeable before. He should shut up and listen more often!
This Jones guy is fruit loop bananas. I cannot believe that there is anyone in the US who is against gun control that would want this crazy man be their spokesperson. But I'm glad they apparently do! Millions listen to this weirdo on the radio and think he might have a good point.... :?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Has anyone pointed out that the UK has a fraction of our population? Then look at Mexico..also has a gun ban, their crime rate is insane. You can't compare any 2 countries cos each has it's own mix of factors in play.
Everyone's attacking mental illness, or some characiture of a backwoods Southerner gripping his gun, neither of which are the real source behind our high gun crime rates..It's not about how many guns there are..the 3 states with the highest gun ownership also have the lowest amount of gun crime. On the other hand, the city with a total ban, Chicago, has the highest crime rate in the nation. Same could be said of D.C. when it had it's total ban.
Put better programs, and more importantly, better jobs, in the poorest areas and gun crime will drop. Britain doesn't have too many ghettos like we do, so why is it shocking they don't have gun crime like we do?
Per capita rates have been posted ad nauseum.
Still a glaring problem for you!
No it's not, actually. I already clearly stated, you cannot compare any 2 countries cos each and every one has their own unique mix of factors in play. Not only is the UK less poor than we are, they also don't border Mexico. So it's only natural their numbers are going to be vastly different. Even in ratio. Guns aren't the source of our problem. Poverty is. Just like guns aren't the source behind the 61 individuals who went on a rampage. As proven by Timothy McVeigh and a kid that was recently stopped...Both used, or intended to use, bombs. Not guns.
Love this. When I first saw it my first thought was that I'd never found Piers Morgan so likeable before. He should shut up and listen more often!
This Jones guy is fruit loop bananas. I cannot believe that there is anyone in the US who is against gun control that would want this crazy man be their spokesperson. But I'm glad they apparently do! Millions listen to this weirdo on the radio and think he might have a good point.... :?
Most don't. Morgan picked a loon to make us look like a bunch of idiots. Same thing Fox news does when they pick some nut to represent the left's opinion. Both sides of the media do this all the time.
Most don't. Morgan picked a loon to make us look like a bunch of idiots. Same thing Fox news does when they pick some nut to represent the left's opinion. Both sides of the media do this all the time.
i disagree that morgan "picked" jones to be on his program. jones willingly went on there with the agenda of saying whatever it was that he said.
jones is a loudmouth looking for a platform to spew his views. he has never turned down an invite to be on tv to get himself some publicity. if anything, the gun rights people should be more careful about who they allow to make their case for them to the general public.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Love this. When I first saw it my first thought was that I'd never found Piers Morgan so likeable before. He should shut up and listen more often!
This Jones guy is fruit loop bananas. I cannot believe that there is anyone in the US who is against gun control that would want this crazy man be their spokesperson. But I'm glad they apparently do! Millions listen to this weirdo on the radio and think he might have a good point.... :?
Most don't. Morgan picked a loon to make us look like a bunch of idiots. Same thing Fox news does when they pick some nut to represent the left's opinion. Both sides of the media do this all the time.
Morgan licked Jones because Jones was calling for him specifically to be deported due to his strong stance for gun control. It was Jones who opened the door in the first place. It made sense for Morgan to get him on the show. Plus, Jones is already an outspoken right winger voice in the media. Apparently he spews this stuff to millions of listeners already. Piers very regularly has non-spaz guests who represent the NRA and gun ownership (and usually it's Piers who won't shut up and comes off like a fool).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Meanwhile a sane intelligent reporter had an arguement with Morgan on twitter..You won't see about that on his show, cos the reporter made Morgan look un-educated and foolish. She more accurately conveys our point of view. Not the nutcase Morgan did allow on his show.
Meanwhile a sane intelligent reporter had an arguement with Morgan on twitter..You won't see about that on his show, cos the reporter made Morgan look un-educated and foolish. She more accurately conveys our point of view. Not the nutcase Morgan did allow on his show.
As already mentioned, it is Piers who USUALLY comes off as foolish. That he didn't with Jones was a change of pace. You do see Morgan acting like an idiot on CNN almost on a daily basis. I think in the end, this interview was totally fair.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Meanwhile a sane intelligent reporter had an arguement with Morgan on twitter..You won't see about that on his show, cos the reporter made Morgan look un-educated and foolish. She more accurately conveys our point of view. Not the nutcase Morgan did allow on his show.
As already mentioned, it is Piers who USUALLY comes off as foolish. That he didn't with Jones was a change of pace. You do see Morgan acting like an idiot on CNN almost on a daily basis. I think in the end, this interview was totally fair.
Oh I'm sorry, I meant that towards the other poster who said they disagreed he picked the guy..The guy may have been a willing participant, but considering how known Morgan is for banning people from his show, he most definately was picked. Prolly cos he saw how stupid the guy is and how he could make Morgan look good for a change..
Has anyone pointed out that the UK has a fraction of our population? Then look at Mexico..also has a gun ban, their crime rate is insane. You can't compare any 2 countries cos each has it's own mix of factors in play.
Everyone's attacking mental illness, or some characiture of a backwoods Southerner gripping his gun, neither of which are the real source behind our high gun crime rates..It's not about how many guns there are..the 3 states with the highest gun ownership also have the lowest amount of gun crime. On the other hand, the city with a total ban, Chicago, has the highest crime rate in the nation. Same could be said of D.C. when it had it's total ban.
Put better programs, and more importantly, better jobs, in the poorest areas and gun crime will drop. Britain doesn't have too many ghettos like we do, so why is it shocking they don't have gun crime like we do?
Per capita rates have been posted ad nauseum.
Still a glaring problem for you!
No it's not, actually. I already clearly stated, you cannot compare any 2 countries cos each and every one has their own unique mix of factors in play. Not only is the UK less poor than we are, they also don't border Mexico. So it's only natural their numbers are going to be vastly different. Even in ratio. Guns aren't the source of our problem. Poverty is. Just like guns aren't the source behind the 61 individuals who went on a rampage. As proven by Timothy McVeigh and a kid that was recently stopped...Both used, or intended to use, bombs. Not guns.
Chadwick- You're welcome
In the first line of your post, typically the one that states the prmise of their argument, you asked, "Has anyone pointed out that the UK has a fraction of our population?"
I responded to this point. The answer is yes and, per capita, you are absolutely rocking it: murdering people with your guns at an unparalleled rate. I'm not reposting the same stuff that has already been posted. Keep up.
As for your other assertion... are you sure you are so unique that your composition is simply going to murder each other with guns no matter what? If you don't like looking at the UK as a comparison... look north to Canada then. With some differences of course, we have very comparable economies, socioeconomic issues, geographies, ethnic compositions and mentalities.
We don't have a comparable gun legislative policy though... nor do we have a comparable homicide by gunfire rate per capita.
Toronto has a population of approximately 2.6 million. It had 54 murders in 2012 (32 homicides by gunfire). In 2011, Toronto had 49 murders (27 murders by gunfire). Canadians are shaking our heads at Toronto and will support any measure aimed at curbing the level of violence. To us... this is no good.
Chicago has a population of approximately 2.7 million. It had 513 murders in 2012.
Yes... Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in America. They're doomed though. 'Pockets' where gun control is levied will be useless when everywhere else- guns are rampant. Your country either goes 'all in' or its 'all out'. Gun legislation by state is the same thing as gun legislation by street. How can that work?
513? Ouch. There's clearly a problem. What measures are you prepared to take to do something about it? Are you prepared to sacrifice anything? I'm suggesting that with no pool of guns to draw from... the streets become much safer. Can you argue this? Granted... you will not experience your desired results immediately: it will take years before the ammunition disappears and the well dries up. But, give it time. Eventually, your kids will experience the USA as your founding father swould have wanted it.
In the first line of your post, typically the one that states the prmise of their argument, you asked, "Has anyone pointed out that the UK has a fraction of our population?"
I responded to this point. The answer is yes and, per capita, you are absolutely rocking it: murdering people with your guns at an unparalleled rate. I'm not reposting the same stuff that has already been posted. Keep up.
As for your other assertion... are you sure you are so unique that your composition is simply going to murder each other with guns no matter what? If you don't like looking at the UK as a comparison... look north to Canada then. With some differences of course, we have very comparable economies, socioeconomic issues, geographies, ethnic compositions and mentalities.
We don't have a comparable gun legislative policy though... nor do we have a comparable homicide by gunfire rate per capita.
Toronto has a population of approximately 2.6 million. It had 54 murders in 2012 (32 homicides by gunfire). In 2011, Toronto had 49 murders (27 murders by gunfire). Canadians are shaking our heads at Toronto and will support any measure aimed at curbing the level of violence. To us... this is no good.
Chicago has a population of approximately 2.7 million. It had 513 murders in 2012.
Yes... Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in America. They're doomed though. 'Pockets' where gun control is levied will be useless when everywhere else- guns are rampant. Your country either goes 'all in' or its 'all out'. Gun legislation by state is the same thing as gun legislation by street. How can that work?
513? Ouch. There's clearly a problem. What measures are you prepared to take to do something about it? Are you prepared to sacrifice anything? I'm suggesting that with no pool of guns to draw from... the streets become much safer. Can you argue this? Granted... you will not experience your desired results immediately: it will take years before the ammunition disappears and the well dries up. But, give it time. Eventually, your kids will experience the USA as your founding father swould have wanted it.
Yes we are so unique. As is every other nation in the world. No two are alike..You say our gun violence is unparalleled. Not hardly. Mexico beats us easily. You say pockets of gun bans won't work..well Mexico has a ban everywhere..again, they beat us easily. The difference between us and Canada is Canada's poverty rate is better than ours and Canada doesn't border a country that floods their borders with drugs and gangs and ever-poorer folks every day. Which makes us different, or "unique," from Canada. It's obviously not the guns considering Canada has more guns per household than we do, yet lower gun crime. Your own arguement contradicts you.
piers morgan is a pain in the frickin neck. i'd take alex over piers any frickin day of the week. piers is a stuffy a-hole about as uptight as they come. ever farted in your britches, piers? hell frickin no he hadn't.
In the first line of your post, typically the one that states the prmise of their argument, you asked, "Has anyone pointed out that the UK has a fraction of our population?"
I responded to this point. The answer is yes and, per capita, you are absolutely rocking it: murdering people with your guns at an unparalleled rate. I'm not reposting the same stuff that has already been posted. Keep up.
As for your other assertion... are you sure you are so unique that your composition is simply going to murder each other with guns no matter what? If you don't like looking at the UK as a comparison... look north to Canada then. With some differences of course, we have very comparable economies, socioeconomic issues, geographies, ethnic compositions and mentalities.
We don't have a comparable gun legislative policy though... nor do we have a comparable homicide by gunfire rate per capita.
Toronto has a population of approximately 2.6 million. It had 54 murders in 2012 (32 homicides by gunfire). In 2011, Toronto had 49 murders (27 murders by gunfire). Canadians are shaking our heads at Toronto and will support any measure aimed at curbing the level of violence. To us... this is no good.
Chicago has a population of approximately 2.7 million. It had 513 murders in 2012.
Yes... Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in America. They're doomed though. 'Pockets' where gun control is levied will be useless when everywhere else- guns are rampant. Your country either goes 'all in' or its 'all out'. Gun legislation by state is the same thing as gun legislation by street. How can that work?
513? Ouch. There's clearly a problem. What measures are you prepared to take to do something about it? Are you prepared to sacrifice anything? I'm suggesting that with no pool of guns to draw from... the streets become much safer. Can you argue this? Granted... you will not experience your desired results immediately: it will take years before the ammunition disappears and the well dries up. But, give it time. Eventually, your kids will experience the USA as your founding father swould have wanted it.
Yes we are so unique. As is every other nation in the world. No two are alike..You say our gun violence is unparalleled. Not hardly. Mexico beats us easily. You say pockets of gun bans won't work..well Mexico has a ban everywhere..again, they beat us easily. The difference between us and Canada is Canada's poverty rate is better than ours and Canada doesn't border a country that floods their borders with drugs and gangs and ever-poorer folks every day. Which makes us different, or "unique," from Canada. It's obviously not the guns considering Canada has more guns per household than we do, yet lower gun crime. Your own arguement contradicts you.
Firstly... which is hilarious... you allude to an 'extreme' example like Mexico to attempt to point out that 'you are not that bad'! Come on. Mexico is in a rogue state where lawlessness reigns supreme. Mexico is the posterchild illustrating the need for 'big government'.
Secondly, you don't know what you are talking about. How do you suggest that Canada has more guns per household than the US? The US has more guns per household than any country. You lead the world!
* Canada has 30.8 guns per 100 households (but no assault rifles).
* US has 89 guns per 100 households. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country
Thirdly, we have drugs and the criminal element that accompanies this type of illegal industry.
Fourth, poverty is not unique to the United States and where poverty is most prevalent in Canada... we are not marked with extreme violence.
Lastly, we face illegal immigration as well. It's not equivalent to the proportion your country faces, but nonetheless... we have a similar 'problem'.
Anyways... as I illustrated... you are making stuff up to legitimize your stance. All the facts necessary to formulate a sound stance on this issue have been presented on this forum in multiple threads. If you can't be bothered to keep up to speed (as I suggested in my first response to you), then I can't be bothered to correct you when you say things erroneously.
Firstly... which is hilarious... you allude to an 'extreme' example like Mexico to attempt to point out that 'you are not that bad'! Come on. Mexico is in a rogue state where lawlessness reigns supreme. Mexico is the posterchild illustrating the need for 'big government'.
Secondly, you don't know what you are talking about. How do you suggest that Canada has more guns per household than the US? The US has more guns per household than any country. You lead the world!
* Canada has 30.8 guns per 100 households (but no assault rifles).
* US has 89 guns per 100 households. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country
Thirdly, we have drugs and the criminal element that accompanies this type of illegal industry.
Fourth, poverty is not unique to the United States and where poverty is most prevalent in Canada... we are not marked with extreme violence.
Lastly, we face illegal immigration as well. It's not equivalent to the proportion your country faces, but nonetheless... we have a similar 'problem'.
Anyways... as I illustrated... you are making stuff up to legitimize your stance. All the facts necessary to formulate a sound stance on this issue have been presented on this forum in multiple threads. If you can't be bothered to keep up to speed (as I suggested in my first response to you), then I can't be bothered to correct you when you say things erroneously.
First, I read it wrong. Canadian's own more guns per gun owning household, than the US. Secondly, where does the stat come from about 89 guns per 100 households. Something more reliable than frickin wikipedia. If we are that ever-loving armed to the teeth, then why don't I see guns everywhere. Certainly I should know more people who are armed..
You do have drugs and crime and such, but not on the level we do. Nor poverty. Hence why we are unique to you. our numbers are different. That's all it takes to make one unique. Canada is also more rural, which is another factor. Each differing factor makes a difference in the numbers. However frivolous you may find it to be. I didn't say poverty is unique to the states. I'm saying our specific mix of poverty/gangs/drugs/urban areas/countries we border is what makes our situation and numbers unique to your specific mix of poverty/gangs/drugs/urban areas/countries you border. So yes. We are unique to you. I'm not saying we're special, I'm saying our numbers are different.
Lastly, the only thing you "illustrated" was I read one thing incorrectly. I am perfectly up to speed. I am not slow and stupid. What I see mostly is opinions based on emotion. The actual facts based on statistics that I've seen posted all support what I'm saying. Bans and stricter regulation only leads to a jump in violence. A jump in violence means more people getting hurt. Therefore, I do not support bans and stricter regulation cos I don't want to see more people getting hurt.
Firstly... which is hilarious... you allude to an 'extreme' example like Mexico to attempt to point out that 'you are not that bad'! Come on. Mexico is in a rogue state where lawlessness reigns supreme. Mexico is the posterchild illustrating the need for 'big government'.
Secondly, you don't know what you are talking about. How do you suggest that Canada has more guns per household than the US? The US has more guns per household than any country. You lead the world!
* Canada has 30.8 guns per 100 households (but no assault rifles).
* US has 89 guns per 100 households. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country
Thirdly, we have drugs and the criminal element that accompanies this type of illegal industry.
Fourth, poverty is not unique to the United States and where poverty is most prevalent in Canada... we are not marked with extreme violence.
Lastly, we face illegal immigration as well. It's not equivalent to the proportion your country faces, but nonetheless... we have a similar 'problem'.
Anyways... as I illustrated... you are making stuff up to legitimize your stance. All the facts necessary to formulate a sound stance on this issue have been presented on this forum in multiple threads. If you can't be bothered to keep up to speed (as I suggested in my first response to you), then I can't be bothered to correct you when you say things erroneously.
First, I read it wrong. Canadian's own more guns per gun owning household, than the US. Secondly, where does the stat come from about 89 guns per 100 households. Something more reliable than frickin wikipedia. If we are that ever-loving armed to the teeth, then why don't I see guns everywhere. Certainly I should know more people who are armed..
You do have drugs and crime and such, but not on the level we do. Nor poverty. Hence why we are unique to you. our numbers are different. That's all it takes to make one unique. Canada is also more rural, which is another factor. Each differing factor makes a difference in the numbers. However frivolous you may find it to be. I didn't say poverty is unique to the states. I'm saying our specific mix of poverty/gangs/drugs/urban areas/countries we border is what makes our situation and numbers unique to your specific mix of poverty/gangs/drugs/urban areas/countries you border. So yes. We are unique to you. I'm not saying we're special, I'm saying our numbers are different.
Lastly, the only thing you "illustrated" was I read one thing incorrectly. I am perfectly up to speed. I am not slow and stupid. What I see mostly is opinions based on emotion. The actual facts based on statistics that I've seen posted all support what I'm saying. Bans and stricter regulation only leads to a jump in violence. A jump in violence means more people getting hurt. Therefore, I do not support bans and stricter regulation cos I don't want to see more people getting hurt.
Wikipedia is reliable enough for such a statistic. If we were referencing some obscure item, then you might have an argument discrediting it.
You questioned whether or not anyone had pointed out the obvious fact that the UK's population base is disproportionate to that of the US's. I responded and said yes people had- many times in fact. That is why people commonly referred to murder rates per capita when making any comparisons.
Then you said Canada has more guns per household... to which I corrected you.
Then you go and say something like this: The actual facts based on statistics that I've seen posted all support what I'm saying (which is guns are cool). What statistics are these? Can you please illustrate them and support with a source? The statistics are not things most gun proponents have been using to make their argument valid (especially on this site): in fact, the statistics make a very convincing case for the necessity for gun legislation.
Speaking of sourcing ridiculous sites... the one you linked fits the bill.
The statistics you just quoted were to support an emotional opinion to ban ban ban, rather than a rational one that shows while that is a bad number, when you ban ban ban, the number of deaths, including that of children, is worse.
I said what I did about the UK to point out how ludacris it is to compare it. You're follow up of comparing per capita is just as ludacris because, as I pointed out, our set of circumstances is different to Britain's.
And last, what I said did not amount to saying "guns are cool". Don't put words in my mouth. Douchebags put words in people's mouths in an attempt to provoke an emotional response or to support their own irrational emotional response.
I did post numbers..somewhere on here..2.5 million crimes stopped because the victims had a gun in 2011 (numbers for 2012 aren't out yet). Of those, less than 1000 resulted in gun shots that killed. 2.5 million. That's a lot of crimes stopped, and potential lives saved because of a gun. I also just posted about how the Government did a study and found the "assault" weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. And I also posted how bans in D.C. and Chicago led to higher gun crime, and how gun crime dropped in D.C. after the ban was reversed. All statistics from the FBI website.
And how's this for a fact, despite the number of gun owners increasing steadily, gun crime and deaths have been decreasing, just as steadily. Also off the FBI website. Oh yea, I forgot to also mention I had also posted how the 3 states with the highest gun ownership, also had the lowest crime rates overall, not just the lowest gun crime.
The statistics you just quoted were to support an emotional opinion to ban ban ban, rather than a rational one that shows while that is a bad number, when you ban ban ban, the number of deaths, including that of children, is worse.
I said what I did about the UK to point out how ludacris it is to compare it. You're follow up of comparing per capita is just as ludacris because, as I pointed out, our set of circumstances is different to Britain's.
And last, what I said did not amount to saying "guns are cool". Don't put words in my mouth. Douchebags put words in people's mouths in an attempt to provoke an emotional response or to support their own irrational emotional response.
I did post numbers..somewhere on here..2.5 million crimes stopped because the victims had a gun in 2011 (numbers for 2012 aren't out yet). Of those, less than 1000 resulted in gun shots that killed. 2.5 million. That's a lot of crimes stopped, and potential lives saved because of a gun. I also just posted about how the Government did a study and found the "assault" weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. And I also posted how bans in D.C. and Chicago led to higher gun crime, and how gun crime dropped in D.C. after the ban was reversed. All statistics from the FBI website.
You call me a douchebag?
I was kind before. I'm not anymore. You haven't said anything except your opinion. You went to great pains to allude to some set of statistics that supported the need for more guns: then you refer to 2.5 million crimes stopped and lives saved because of a gun. How exactly has that number been procured? How many of these crimes saved were due to the actions of police officers? Most importantly... where is the source?
You're late to this discussion: a bunch on this forum have been through this ad nauseum. I'm not into starting all over with you because frankly... ah, never mind. You have nothing to add to what has been a month long discussion, so you'll have to find a different sparring partner; but hear me when I say this: if you want a reasonable fight... look for a 5 year old. They flaunt their unsubstantiated opinions and poorly conceived ideas just like you: it would be a good go! Here's another idea: film it and put it on youtube. Title it 'Epic Gun Control Debate'. Instant classic.
The statistics you just quoted were to support an emotional opinion to ban ban ban, rather than a rational one that shows while that is a bad number, when you ban ban ban, the number of deaths, including that of children, is worse.
I said what I did about the UK to point out how ludacris it is to compare it. You're follow up of comparing per capita is just as ludacris because, as I pointed out, our set of circumstances is different to Britain's.
And last, what I said did not amount to saying "guns are cool". Don't put words in my mouth. Douchebags put words in people's mouths in an attempt to provoke an emotional response or to support their own irrational emotional response.
I did post numbers..somewhere on here..2.5 million crimes stopped because the victims had a gun in 2011 (numbers for 2012 aren't out yet). Of those, less than 1000 resulted in gun shots that killed. 2.5 million. That's a lot of crimes stopped, and potential lives saved because of a gun. I also just posted about how the Government did a study and found the "assault" weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. And I also posted how bans in D.C. and Chicago led to higher gun crime, and how gun crime dropped in D.C. after the ban was reversed. All statistics from the FBI website.
You call me a douchebag?
I was kind before. I'm not anymore. You haven't said anything except your opinion. You went to great pains to allude to some set of statistics that supported the need for more guns: then you refer to 2.5 million crimes stopped and lives saved because of a gun. How exactly has that number been procured? How many of these crimes saved were due to the actions of police officers? Most importantly... where is the source?
You're late to this discussion: a bunch on this forum have been through this ad nauseum. I'm not into starting all over with you because frankly... ah, never mind. You have nothing to add to what has been a month long discussion, so you'll have to find a different sparring partner; but hear me when I say this: if you want a reasonable fight... look for a 5 year old. They flaunt their unsubstantiated opinions and poorly conceived ideas just like you: it would be a good go! Here's another idea: film it and put it on youtube. Title it 'Epic Gun Control Debate'. Instant classic.
I didn't call you a douchebag. I gave you a chance to keep from becoming one by speaking for me. And I said several times where my source is. FBI. Are you just skipping over everywhere I've stated this? I said it several times. You are more than welcome to check their website for yourself. As to how they got to those numbers..I wouldn't know..ask them. I trust it tho...them being the FBI an all...not some website where anyone can write anything they want. I'd imagine they know cos the crimes were reported and the FBI has access to crime reports. And as far as the stats of how many were police officers..that number was on there as well.
What gets me is everyone from elsewhere in the world is weighing in telling us what we should do. You have your own crime. How can you tell us how to get rid of our crime when you can't even get rid of your own?
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I didn't call you a douchebag. I gave you a chance to keep from becoming one by speaking for me. And I said several times where my source is. FBI. Are you just skipping over everywhere I've stated this? I said it several times. You are more than welcome to check their website for yourself. As to how they got to those numbers..I wouldn't know..ask them. I trust it tho...them being the FBI an all...not some website where anyone can write anything they want. I'd imagine they know cos the crimes were reported and the FBI has access to crime reports. And as far as the stats of how many were police officers..that number was on there as well.
What gets me is everyone from elsewhere in the world is weighing in telling us what we should do. You have your own crime. How can you tell us how to get rid of our crime when you can't even get rid of your own?
Own your words. You said, "Don't put words in my mouth. Douchebags put words in people's mouths in an attempt to provoke an emotional response or to support their own irrational emotional response." So, your veiled, yet direct insult to my character was not so covert. You called me a douchebag and now you're backing down.
Still no reference, but interesting that you say you trust the FBI (them being the FBI and all). Did you know a major point of contention from the better-versed gun proponents has been distrust of the government?
I didn't call you a douchebag. I gave you a chance to keep from becoming one by speaking for me. And I said several times where my source is. FBI. Are you just skipping over everywhere I've stated this? I said it several times. You are more than welcome to check their website for yourself. As to how they got to those numbers..I wouldn't know..ask them. I trust it tho...them being the FBI an all...not some website where anyone can write anything they want. I'd imagine they know cos the crimes were reported and the FBI has access to crime reports. And as far as the stats of how many were police officers..that number was on there as well.
What gets me is everyone from elsewhere in the world is weighing in telling us what we should do. You have your own crime. How can you tell us how to get rid of our crime when you can't even get rid of your own?
Own your words. You said, "Don't put words in my mouth. Douchebags put words in people's mouths in an attempt to provoke an emotional response or to support their own irrational emotional response." So, your veiled, yet direct insult to my character was not so covert. You called me a douchebag and now you're backing down.
Still no reference, but interesting that you say you trust the FBI (them being the FBI and all). Did you know a major point of contention from the better-versed gun proponents has been distrust of the government?
Have a nice day.
I'm not backing down from anything.
No reference? fbi.gov, is it really that difficult for you to figure out?
Distrust of the government is part of a conspiracy theory. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Not all pro-gun folks are alike.
And way to go Dimitri..exactly the emotional response he was trying to invoke. No thought put into how when there is a gun ban there a lot more of those babies killed.
And way to go Dimitri..exactly the emotional response he was trying to invoke. No thought put into how when there is a gun ban there a lot more of those babies killed.
actually was a spontaneous reaction..cos the number is huge per day..
all this time we talked in thousand of deaths,and that per day was like sockin
nothing to do with what you guys talking,i didnt read the whole thread yet for comment or have an opinion
thats why i quote only the "8 kids every day." and not the whole post
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
And way to go Dimitri..exactly the emotional response he was trying to invoke. No thought put into how when there is a gun ban there a lot more of those babies killed.
actually was a spontaneous reaction..cos the number is huge per day..
all this time we talked in thousand of deaths,and that per day was like sockin
nothing to do with what you guys talking,i didnt read the whole thread yet for comment or have an opinion
thats why i quote only the "8 kids every day." and not the whole post
Well..that is what he was trying to do, shock people into feeling bad. It is a shocking and sad number. But it's even higher when guns are banned here. Which means a lot more children died that didn't have to during the ban in D.C. and during this ban in Chicago. That's heartbreaking.
And way to go Dimitri..exactly the emotional response he was trying to invoke. No thought put into how when there is a gun ban there a lot more of those babies killed.
actually was a spontaneous reaction..cos the number is huge per day..
all this time we talked in thousand of deaths,and that per day was like sockin
nothing to do with what you guys talking,i didnt read the whole thread yet for comment or have an opinion
thats why i quote only the "8 kids every day." and not the whole post
Well..that is what he was trying to do, shock people into feeling bad. It is a shocking and sad number. But it's even higher when guns are banned here. Which means a lot more children died that didn't have to during the ban in D.C. and during this ban in Chicago. That's heartbreaking.
to tell u the truth,im googling right now to see,how many kids born every day in Greece..
to make a match in my mind..
anyway,something need to be done with this fuckin violence.
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
No reference? fbi.gov, is it really that difficult for you to figure out?
Distrust of the government is part of a conspiracy theory. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Not all pro-gun folks are alike.
And way to go Dimitri..exactly the emotional response he was trying to invoke. No thought put into how when there is a gun ban there a lot more of those babies killed.
Oh no... you're backing down. That is very evident.Did you forget when you mentioned that you were giving me a chance not to become a douche when I called it for what it was?
And now you're patronizing Dimi. Too bad there wasn't a 'pat on the head' emoticon, huh? That could have really emphasized your comment to him.
If they put better programs, and more importantly, better jobs, in poorest areas, it would deal with poverty and crime at the same time. It's frustrating that everyone is focusing on one of many tools used for crime, instead of focusing on the driving source behind the crime.
thirty- you're just plain wrong. And you are still speaking for me, so now, yes, you are being a douchebag.
Comments
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Per capita rates have been posted ad nauseum.
Still a glaring problem for you!
This Jones guy is fruit loop bananas. I cannot believe that there is anyone in the US who is against gun control that would want this crazy man be their spokesperson. But I'm glad they apparently do!
No it's not, actually. I already clearly stated, you cannot compare any 2 countries cos each and every one has their own unique mix of factors in play. Not only is the UK less poor than we are, they also don't border Mexico. So it's only natural their numbers are going to be vastly different. Even in ratio. Guns aren't the source of our problem. Poverty is. Just like guns aren't the source behind the 61 individuals who went on a rampage. As proven by Timothy McVeigh and a kid that was recently stopped...Both used, or intended to use, bombs. Not guns.
Chadwick- You're welcome
Most don't. Morgan picked a loon to make us look like a bunch of idiots. Same thing Fox news does when they pick some nut to represent the left's opinion. Both sides of the media do this all the time.
jones is a loudmouth looking for a platform to spew his views. he has never turned down an invite to be on tv to get himself some publicity. if anything, the gun rights people should be more careful about who they allow to make their case for them to the general public.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Oh I'm sorry, I meant that towards the other poster who said they disagreed he picked the guy..The guy may have been a willing participant, but considering how known Morgan is for banning people from his show, he most definately was picked. Prolly cos he saw how stupid the guy is and how he could make Morgan look good for a change..
In the first line of your post, typically the one that states the prmise of their argument, you asked, "Has anyone pointed out that the UK has a fraction of our population?"
I responded to this point. The answer is yes and, per capita, you are absolutely rocking it: murdering people with your guns at an unparalleled rate. I'm not reposting the same stuff that has already been posted. Keep up.
As for your other assertion... are you sure you are so unique that your composition is simply going to murder each other with guns no matter what? If you don't like looking at the UK as a comparison... look north to Canada then. With some differences of course, we have very comparable economies, socioeconomic issues, geographies, ethnic compositions and mentalities.
We don't have a comparable gun legislative policy though... nor do we have a comparable homicide by gunfire rate per capita.
Toronto has a population of approximately 2.6 million. It had 54 murders in 2012 (32 homicides by gunfire). In 2011, Toronto had 49 murders (27 murders by gunfire). Canadians are shaking our heads at Toronto and will support any measure aimed at curbing the level of violence. To us... this is no good.
Chicago has a population of approximately 2.7 million. It had 513 murders in 2012.
Yes... Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in America. They're doomed though. 'Pockets' where gun control is levied will be useless when everywhere else- guns are rampant. Your country either goes 'all in' or its 'all out'. Gun legislation by state is the same thing as gun legislation by street. How can that work?
513? Ouch. There's clearly a problem. What measures are you prepared to take to do something about it? Are you prepared to sacrifice anything? I'm suggesting that with no pool of guns to draw from... the streets become much safer. Can you argue this? Granted... you will not experience your desired results immediately: it will take years before the ammunition disappears and the well dries up. But, give it time. Eventually, your kids will experience the USA as your founding father swould have wanted it.
Sources:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/tor ... le6822020/
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... gic-number
Yes we are so unique. As is every other nation in the world. No two are alike..You say our gun violence is unparalleled. Not hardly. Mexico beats us easily. You say pockets of gun bans won't work..well Mexico has a ban everywhere..again, they beat us easily. The difference between us and Canada is Canada's poverty rate is better than ours and Canada doesn't border a country that floods their borders with drugs and gangs and ever-poorer folks every day. Which makes us different, or "unique," from Canada. It's obviously not the guns considering Canada has more guns per household than we do, yet lower gun crime. Your own arguement contradicts you.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Firstly... which is hilarious... you allude to an 'extreme' example like Mexico to attempt to point out that 'you are not that bad'! Come on. Mexico is in a rogue state where lawlessness reigns supreme. Mexico is the posterchild illustrating the need for 'big government'.
Secondly, you don't know what you are talking about. How do you suggest that Canada has more guns per household than the US? The US has more guns per household than any country. You lead the world!
* Canada has 30.8 guns per 100 households (but no assault rifles).
* US has 89 guns per 100 households.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country
Thirdly, we have drugs and the criminal element that accompanies this type of illegal industry.
Fourth, poverty is not unique to the United States and where poverty is most prevalent in Canada... we are not marked with extreme violence.
Lastly, we face illegal immigration as well. It's not equivalent to the proportion your country faces, but nonetheless... we have a similar 'problem'.
Anyways... as I illustrated... you are making stuff up to legitimize your stance. All the facts necessary to formulate a sound stance on this issue have been presented on this forum in multiple threads. If you can't be bothered to keep up to speed (as I suggested in my first response to you), then I can't be bothered to correct you when you say things erroneously.
First, I read it wrong. Canadian's own more guns per gun owning household, than the US. Secondly, where does the stat come from about 89 guns per 100 households. Something more reliable than frickin wikipedia. If we are that ever-loving armed to the teeth, then why don't I see guns everywhere. Certainly I should know more people who are armed..
You do have drugs and crime and such, but not on the level we do. Nor poverty. Hence why we are unique to you. our numbers are different. That's all it takes to make one unique. Canada is also more rural, which is another factor. Each differing factor makes a difference in the numbers. However frivolous you may find it to be. I didn't say poverty is unique to the states. I'm saying our specific mix of poverty/gangs/drugs/urban areas/countries we border is what makes our situation and numbers unique to your specific mix of poverty/gangs/drugs/urban areas/countries you border. So yes. We are unique to you. I'm not saying we're special, I'm saying our numbers are different.
Lastly, the only thing you "illustrated" was I read one thing incorrectly. I am perfectly up to speed. I am not slow and stupid. What I see mostly is opinions based on emotion. The actual facts based on statistics that I've seen posted all support what I'm saying. Bans and stricter regulation only leads to a jump in violence. A jump in violence means more people getting hurt. Therefore, I do not support bans and stricter regulation cos I don't want to see more people getting hurt.
http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-c ... -rate.html
Wikipedia is reliable enough for such a statistic. If we were referencing some obscure item, then you might have an argument discrediting it.
You questioned whether or not anyone had pointed out the obvious fact that the UK's population base is disproportionate to that of the US's. I responded and said yes people had- many times in fact. That is why people commonly referred to murder rates per capita when making any comparisons.
Then you said Canada has more guns per household... to which I corrected you.
Then you go and say something like this: The actual facts based on statistics that I've seen posted all support what I'm saying (which is guns are cool). What statistics are these? Can you please illustrate them and support with a source? The statistics are not things most gun proponents have been using to make their argument valid (especially on this site): in fact, the statistics make a very convincing case for the necessity for gun legislation.
Speaking of sourcing ridiculous sites... the one you linked fits the bill.
10,000 people per year dead by gunfire in the US
2008 2,947 children in the US died by gunfire
2009 2,793 children in the US died by gunfire
* 8 kids every day. 2012's stats might be skewed a bit given what happened last month.
Source for children's data:
http://www.childrensdefense.org
The statistics you just quoted were to support an emotional opinion to ban ban ban, rather than a rational one that shows while that is a bad number, when you ban ban ban, the number of deaths, including that of children, is worse.
I said what I did about the UK to point out how ludacris it is to compare it. You're follow up of comparing per capita is just as ludacris because, as I pointed out, our set of circumstances is different to Britain's.
And last, what I said did not amount to saying "guns are cool". Don't put words in my mouth. Douchebags put words in people's mouths in an attempt to provoke an emotional response or to support their own irrational emotional response.
I did post numbers..somewhere on here..2.5 million crimes stopped because the victims had a gun in 2011 (numbers for 2012 aren't out yet). Of those, less than 1000 resulted in gun shots that killed. 2.5 million. That's a lot of crimes stopped, and potential lives saved because of a gun. I also just posted about how the Government did a study and found the "assault" weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. And I also posted how bans in D.C. and Chicago led to higher gun crime, and how gun crime dropped in D.C. after the ban was reversed. All statistics from the FBI website.
You call me a douchebag?
I was kind before. I'm not anymore. You haven't said anything except your opinion. You went to great pains to allude to some set of statistics that supported the need for more guns: then you refer to 2.5 million crimes stopped and lives saved because of a gun. How exactly has that number been procured? How many of these crimes saved were due to the actions of police officers? Most importantly... where is the source?
You're late to this discussion: a bunch on this forum have been through this ad nauseum. I'm not into starting all over with you because frankly... ah, never mind. You have nothing to add to what has been a month long discussion, so you'll have to find a different sparring partner; but hear me when I say this: if you want a reasonable fight... look for a 5 year old. They flaunt their unsubstantiated opinions and poorly conceived ideas just like you: it would be a good go! Here's another idea: film it and put it on youtube. Title it 'Epic Gun Control Debate'. Instant classic.
I didn't call you a douchebag. I gave you a chance to keep from becoming one by speaking for me. And I said several times where my source is. FBI. Are you just skipping over everywhere I've stated this? I said it several times. You are more than welcome to check their website for yourself. As to how they got to those numbers..I wouldn't know..ask them. I trust it tho...them being the FBI an all...not some website where anyone can write anything they want. I'd imagine they know cos the crimes were reported and the FBI has access to crime reports. And as far as the stats of how many were police officers..that number was on there as well.
What gets me is everyone from elsewhere in the world is weighing in telling us what we should do. You have your own crime. How can you tell us how to get rid of our crime when you can't even get rid of your own?
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Own your words. You said, "Don't put words in my mouth. Douchebags put words in people's mouths in an attempt to provoke an emotional response or to support their own irrational emotional response." So, your veiled, yet direct insult to my character was not so covert. You called me a douchebag and now you're backing down.
Still no reference, but interesting that you say you trust the FBI (them being the FBI and all). Did you know a major point of contention from the better-versed gun proponents has been distrust of the government?
Have a nice day.
No reference? fbi.gov, is it really that difficult for you to figure out?
Distrust of the government is part of a conspiracy theory. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Not all pro-gun folks are alike.
And way to go Dimitri..exactly the emotional response he was trying to invoke. No thought put into how when there is a gun ban there a lot more of those babies killed.
all this time we talked in thousand of deaths,and that per day was like sockin
nothing to do with what you guys talking,i didnt read the whole thread yet for comment or have an opinion
thats why i quote only the "8 kids every day." and not the whole post
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Well..that is what he was trying to do, shock people into feeling bad. It is a shocking and sad number. But it's even higher when guns are banned here. Which means a lot more children died that didn't have to during the ban in D.C. and during this ban in Chicago. That's heartbreaking.
to make a match in my mind..
anyway,something need to be done with this fuckin violence.
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Oh no... you're backing down. That is very evident.Did you forget when you mentioned that you were giving me a chance not to become a douche when I called it for what it was?
And now you're patronizing Dimi. Too bad there wasn't a 'pat on the head' emoticon, huh? That could have really emphasized your comment to him.
thirty- you're just plain wrong. And you are still speaking for me, so now, yes, you are being a douchebag.