guns and bullets

dunkman · January 2011

heidijam wrote:

MYTH: Japan has strict gun control and a less violent society.

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.

this is interesting.. its basically an admission of a highly criminalised society you live in.

you are basically saying that if all guns were made to vanish... the US would be three times more murderous than Japan.... add to that figure the actual number of murders BY A FIREARM and the figure is about 15 times higher than that of Japan.

you have proved how easy it is to kill using a gun. the argument that people will still find a way is moot... they don't find another way in Japan do they? or in the UK? France?

thanks.

polaris_x · January 2011

anyhoo ... what it boils down to is this:

do you think a country that has involved itself in so many conflicts and spends more money on ARMS and is the biggest ARMS dealer in the world wants to restrict access to guns? ... not likely ... it's part of the culture ... you can't show a nipple on tv but you can show massacres of people getting heads chopped off ...

eMMI · January 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

flawed math. 10 rounds can = 10 dead. I don't think that anyone should be punished before laws have been broken. I should not be kept from enjoying things simply because a few cannot enjoy the same things responsibly...if he was limited to ten rounds maybe he buys 4 guns...seriously, at what point do you stop limiting things? nothing but muzzle loaders? muskets? how about nothing but sling shots ... no wait someone might hurt themselves

different culture is exactly the point...

Out of curiosity more than anything.. For what does any person need more than 10 rounds? If indeed you have a gun for self protection and don't manage to kill your assailant with the first round, surely after unloading the remaining nine into them would essentially make the person harmless?

dunkman · January 2011

he still stands wrote:

so you're a Prohibitionist?

i'm not a prohibitionist dude... i'm saying we have a problem over here in the UK with kids getting drunk and causing anti-social disorder... as a result supermarkets won't sell drink to people under the age of 25... you know over here as we are a civilised society we try and solve some of our problems rather than blindly accepting them.

dunkman · January 2011

polaris_x wrote:

anyhoo ... what it boils down to is this:

do you think a country that has involved itself in so many conflicts and spends more money on ARMS and is the biggest ARMS dealer in the world wants to restrict access to guns? ... not likely ... it's part of the culture ... you can't show a nipple on tv but you can show massacres of people getting heads chopped off ...

52,294,294 people like this

mikepegg44 · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

he still stands wrote:

There have been studies that CORRELATE violence and gun ownership, but no CAUSALITY has ever been proven.

So, we could say easier access to guns lead to more violence, or it could mean that larger amounts of violence lead to a higher level of gun ownership for self defense, or any other independent cause.

There are also studies that have not found a correlation between the two, so until there is signicant scientific proof, please quit implying that it is self-evident that guns cause violence.

Also, just because some of us are "pro gun" doesn't mean that we're okay with all this violence in the world. For some reason anti-gun folks automatically make that leap. Personally, I think that violence of any kind is the result of mental health problems that are caused by a fabricated, toxic and viral society.

i'm saying that that the ease and availability of a gun a significant factor on the US's extremely high homicide rates... surely thats a given? thats a common sense maths question...

its like the ease of attaining extremely cheap strong alcohol and in vast quantities plays a SIGNIFICANT factor in relation to the anti-social behaviour problems of UK teenagers... using your logic and the other pro-gunners then the alcohol isnt even part of this equation... the problem lies elsewhere... it doesnt.. the kids get drunk cheaply and quickly... then they fuck about doing stuff they shouldnt.

why do you guys need stats and studies to prove things all the time? I don't need a 48 page study by the World Health Organisation to tell me that putting my hand in a fire will burn me.... just as i don't need a study to tell me that Colombia has a higher percentage of cocaine addicts than most other countries due to the availability of the drug.. thats common sense and good judgment... just as I don't need a study to tell me that the reason 6 people died at the hands of a maniac was caused by the ease in which he acquired a legal weapon to kill those people.

You are right, you can ignore that giant majority of gun owners who are responsible by using your "common sense"
common sense is the biggest enemy of actual facts. Sometimes they are the same, but they also can be very different.

this is an extreme example of how common sense can lead you wrong.
We all have biases that we develop over time. If a womans has only been around 15 men in her life and they all beat her, wouldn't it be common sense to her that the 16th would do the same. Common sense is really a misnomer...what it actually is is life experience + education...if a person is lacking in one area their common sense will be as well.

I cannot stress this enough Legally acquiring a fire arm did not CAUSE the deaths...a nut bag caused the deaths. If you think the gun being purchased legally caused their death, than you must also believe that going to meet the congresswoman that day also caused their death, or waking up in the morning caused their death...it all had the same impact if you remove the CRAZY PERSON WHO USED THE GUN TO KILL PEOPLE if you cannot see the difference I don't know what to tell you. Every day guns are purchased that NEVER are used in the commission of a crime...

JonnyPistachio · January 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Point to me a situation where lax gun control laws are the sole reason for crime and violence. As brought up before, vermont has extremely lax gun control laws, why aren't there shoot outs in the streets every day? maybe it is because guns aren't the problem...something else is causing it. Again, why punish those who aren't going to commit crimes with their weapons?

I believe the lax gun laws in Arizona caused several deaths a few weeks ago. There is no doubt in my mind that stricter laws would have saved a life or two that day. In 2004 the law limited magazine rounds to 10. That law expired, and the kid got mags with 30+ rounds. He purchased these things legally. He was tackled after the first mag of 30+ rounds were fired. Here's the math, 30 rounds = 6 dead. if he had 10 rounds = 2 dead. Stricter laws might have saved lives. Maybe a waiting peroid could have prolonged it a few months while someone finally realized that he was nuts in the interim.

Yuo might have a point with Vermont as I dont know much about it, but I am also under the impression that life is a little differnt in Vermont... A lot less people and a different culture. But I'm sure there are senseless shootings there from time to time, as there are in every other state.

flawed math. 10 rounds can = 10 dead. I don't think that anyone should be punished before laws have been broken. I should not be kept from enjoying things simply because a few cannot enjoy the same things responsibly...if he was limited to ten rounds maybe he buys 4 guns...seriously, at what point do you stop limiting things? nothing but muzzle loaders? muskets? how about nothing but sling shots ... no wait someone might hurt themselves

different culture is exactly the point...

you dont think anyone should be punished before laws have been broken? How is mass murder not breaking the laws? So you're OK with 30+ rounds in mags because it would inconvenience responsible gun owners, even though limits could have saved lives in the arizona shooting??

this is just my opinion, but I think that kid in Arizona followed the laws in buying the gun, and might not have had the resources to quadruple his arsenal. I also doubt he had like $3,000 to buy four guns and ammo if the mag limits were 10. I think his goal was to KILL Giffords, and subsequently take down a few more until the cops shot him. yeah, you're right 10 rounds could equal 10 dead, but I was using statistics in proportion to his abilities to hit moving targets in chaos. but He probaly did hit more in the firs tfew rounds than the latter rounds..

And good point at where do we limit things.. how bout a Howitzer? or a genade launcher? I should be able to own a bazooka if I want to, even if others cant handle it responsibly. I might be a responsible bazooka lover or a responsbile tank lover, but those arent OK to own. Drawing the line in some places makes sense, and magazine limits make complete sense to me. I'm confident less people would've died in AZ.

mikepegg44 · January 2011

eMMI wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

flawed math. 10 rounds can = 10 dead. I don't think that anyone should be punished before laws have been broken. I should not be kept from enjoying things simply because a few cannot enjoy the same things responsibly...if he was limited to ten rounds maybe he buys 4 guns...seriously, at what point do you stop limiting things? nothing but muzzle loaders? muskets? how about nothing but sling shots ... no wait someone might hurt themselves

different culture is exactly the point...

Out of curiosity more than anything.. For what does any person need more than 10 rounds? If indeed you have a gun for self protection and don't manage to kill your assailant with the first round, surely after unloading the remaining nine into them would essentially make the person harmless?

my point was more to the flawed reasoning behind the math. I don't understand the need to own an assault weapon with a 100 round magazine...I own a 25 caliber hand gun that holds 7 rounds, and I own a duck plugged shot gun that holds 3 as well as an over under that only holds two shells and a 410 that only holds 1...I am fine with the limiting of capacity, but couldn't he just as easily carried 2, 3, 4, 5 guns? Where do you stop limiting once you start? you can put all the limits you want on it, but until you address the culture problems crazy people will find a way to do crazy things.

dunkman · January 2011

JonnyPistachio wrote:

And good point at where do we limit things.. how bout a Howitzer? or a genade launcher? I should be able to own a bazooka if I want to, even if others cant handle it responsibly. I might be a responsible bazooka lover or a responsbile tank lover, but those arent OK to own.

can anyone tell me why its not ok to own those? cos they'd be mighty fucking handy in the inevitable and glorious uprising of the future militia? I don't think the US Army is scared of citizens with a handgun... but they might be concerned if Chubby Brookstein from Oklahama has 24 surface to air missiles in his garage... legally obtained of course.

if you follow that beloved line of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"...

arent howitzers arms? tanks? grenades?

i also like the use of the word 'regulated'... it implies some form of regulation...

mikepegg44 · January 2011

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

flawed math. 10 rounds can = 10 dead. I don't think that anyone should be punished before laws have been broken. I should not be kept from enjoying things simply because a few cannot enjoy the same things responsibly...if he was limited to ten rounds maybe he buys 4 guns...seriously, at what point do you stop limiting things? nothing but muzzle loaders? muskets? how about nothing but sling shots ... no wait someone might hurt themselves

different culture is exactly the point...

you dont think anyone should be punished before laws have been broken? How is mass murder not breaking the laws?.

Mass murder is a crime, and he will be punished. I didn't commit the crime, why should I be punished as well?
as to the rest of your post, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

JonnyPistachio · January 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

[...I am fine with the limiting of capacity, but couldn't he just as easily carried 2, 3, 4, 5 guns? Where do you stop limiting once you start? you can put all the limits you want on it, but until you address the culture problems crazy people will find a way to do crazy things.

I'm glad to hear you're OK limiting capacity, because just as Emmi said, do the responsible gun owners really need 30+ rounds in a mag?
And to say he couldve carried up to 5 guns is just speculative. I doubt it. Yeah, maybe crazy people will do what it takes to get the guns, but that shouldnt mean we dont have limits on things. Yes, the culture problems need to be addressed too, but in conjunction, we need to do what we can to keep responsible gun owners happy, and minimize sensless loss of life. Its all about compromise.

And I feel that the compromise needs toreflect the times. We can spat out all the stats we want, but it seems to me that there have been more and more of these crazy people going on shooting sprees in the last 5-10 yrs. Its just going to get worse at this pace... something has to be done, both culturally, and with gun laws.

EDIT: also, I woulndt call it punishing you by restricting mag limits.. its a compromise. you still have your guns and ammo..

Godfather. · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

and for fucksakes man post a proposal on here,items 1 through what ever and lets vote on them instead of all this meaningless one sided babble.......dunk

Godfather.

dude... can i ask a question and please don't take offence, but do you actually contribute anything on this forum or do you just post diatribe to flame and incite? All your posts are incendiary and don't bring any reasoned logic to a debate. All you post is stuff like "you guys can cry all day but i'll never give up my gun"

what does that even contribute?

more seriously man what does anything on this forum achieve ? it's fun I'll give ya that but anything beyond that is meaningless,I have learned a few things on here from a few people but this debate over which country has the highest death rate per capita due to guns or why this or that should be is just straight up meaningless fun..that is unless you have a inside line to the white house or state offices to do a Huey Long and make some new laws or change or improve the old ones,other than that what do you have ?....nothing but an opinion and who do you think you are on here man, the original thinker ? so ease up on the forum self righteous jabber there buddy.

Godfather.

eMMI · January 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

eMMI wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

flawed math. 10 rounds can = 10 dead. I don't think that anyone should be punished before laws have been broken. I should not be kept from enjoying things simply because a few cannot enjoy the same things responsibly...if he was limited to ten rounds maybe he buys 4 guns...seriously, at what point do you stop limiting things? nothing but muzzle loaders? muskets? how about nothing but sling shots ... no wait someone might hurt themselves

different culture is exactly the point...

Out of curiosity more than anything.. For what does any person need more than 10 rounds? If indeed you have a gun for self protection and don't manage to kill your assailant with the first round, surely after unloading the remaining nine into them would essentially make the person harmless?

my point was more to the flawed reasoning behind the math. I don't understand the need to own an assault weapon with a 100 round magazine...I own a 25 caliber hand gun that holds 7 rounds, and I own a duck plugged shot gun that holds 3 as well as an over under that only holds two shells and a 410 that only holds 1...I am fine with the limiting of capacity, but couldn't he just as easily carried 2, 3, 4, 5 guns? Where do you stop limiting once you start? you can put all the limits you want on it, but until you address the culture problems crazy people will find a way to do crazy things.

It shouldn't be that easy for said crazy people to do their crazy things. Limiting crazy people's access to guns is unbelievably necessary. Making it near-impossible is unbelievably necessary. (Someone intent on killing others might still be able to get a gun, I guess that's true, but weapons shouldn't be handed out like candy.) Like others have said, there are limitations to weapon ownership already, why not extend that the other way as well?

EDIT: Got distracted and forgot to add: You're obviously right in that the cultural problems need to be addressed too. Stricter gun laws and tackling the questions of why so many people don't feel quite all right in the head, need to happen at the same time.

Blockhead · January 2011

I will post this again..........
As for the second half of the twentieth century, and especially its last quarter, a study comparing the number of guns to murder rates found that during the 25‐year period from 1973 to 1997, the number of handguns
owned by Americans increased 160% while the number of all firearms rose 103%. Yet over that period, the murder rate declined 27.7%.125 It continued to decline in the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, despite the addition in each year of two to three million handguns and approximately five million firearms of all kinds. By the end of 2000, the total American gunstock stood at well over 260 million—951.1 guns for every 1,000 Americans—but the murder rate had returned to the comparatively low level prior to the increases of the mid‐
1960s to mid‐1970s period.126 In sum, the data for the decades since the end of World WarII also fails to bear out the more guns equal more death mantra. The per capita accumulated stock of guns has increased,
yet there has been no correspondingly consistent increase in either total violence or gun violence. The evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that gun possession levels have little impact on violence rates.
So if the # of guns is increasing and the murder rate is declining. More guns /= more violent crime. As see with the UK.
Also, say we ban guns. Will you all not address the issue of whatever tool is doing the most killing and or used in a multiple murder crime. Say this happend in AZ with a knife and the killer only killed 2 - 3 people. Are you ok with that or does a knife regulation need to take place? It seems most of you are just having an emotional hissy fit over guns. Thats fine if you don't like them, want them, etc... But if the majority are using them responsibly, I don't see the issue with owning a gun. Same can be said for a knife most people are responsible with knives but other are not. It does not make sense to ban / control guns, if you are not against regulations again other objects that can also kill people. Again the majority of gun owners do not kill anybody, same with knife owners.

mikepegg44 · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

And good point at where do we limit things.. how bout a Howitzer? or a genade launcher? I should be able to own a bazooka if I want to, even if others cant handle it responsibly. I might be a responsible bazooka lover or a responsbile tank lover, but those arent OK to own.

can anyone tell me why its not ok to own those? cos they'd be mighty fucking handy in the inevitable and glorious uprising of the future militia? I don't think the US Army is scared of citizens with a handgun... but they might be concerned if Chubby Brookstein from Oklahama has 24 surface to air missiles in his garage... legally obtained of course.

if you follow that beloved line of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"...

arent howitzers arms? tanks? grenades?

i also like the use of the word 'regulated'... it implies some form of regulation...

I should let you know that you are talking to a libertarian, so it shouldn't surprise you that I would say until someone/something else's rights are violated, I should be allowed to own just about anything I want. howitzer, big giant vats of acid, thousands of drums of oil, whatever I want to spend my money on I should be able to do it, again as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights what is the problem?

JonnyPistachio · January 2011

seriously everyone, give up on the knife/bat/sticks thing!!
Apples and oranges.

mikepegg44 · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

he still stands wrote:

so you're a Prohibitionist?

i'm not a prohibitionist dude... i'm saying we have a problem over here in the UK with kids getting drunk and causing anti-social disorder... as a result supermarkets won't sell drink to people under the age of 25... you know over here as we are a civilised society we try and solve some of our problems rather than blindly accepting them.

arrogance is a good way to debate

Blockhead · January 2011

JonnyPistachio wrote:

seriously everyone, give up on the knife/bat/sticks thing!!
Apples and oranges.

I am not comparing them. People are here are getting emotional over the tool used that do the majority of killings especially these mass murders. I am asking if we ban guns and crime is still consistant and people find new ways / tools to murder, would they be fine with that. People are attacking guns and are failing to realize and taking guns away will not reduce violent crime. It will reduce gun crime yes, but not violent crime. So my question is, if guns are out of the question and other tools are used to do the killings, will you have issue and want regulation on that tool say a knife? If not why?

chime · January 2011

HeidiJam wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

seriously everyone, give up on the knife/bat/sticks thing!!
Apples and oranges.

I am not comparing them. People are here are getting emotional over the tool used that do the majority of killings especially these mass murders. I am asking if we ban guns and crime is still consistant and people find new ways / tools to murder, would they be fine with that. People are attacking guns and are failing to realize and taking guns away will not reduce violent crime. It will reduce gun crime yes, but not violent crime. So my question is, if guns are out of the question and other tools are used to do the killings, will you have issue and want regulation on that tool say a knife? If not why?

In the UK we do have regulations on knives ... and as our knife crime has worsened we have increased that regulation. In 2007 the age at which you can buy a knife was increased from 16 to 18. There are also certain knives that are banned.

... and that's not getting into the argument about the necessity of knives to everyday life in comparison to guns

Blockhead · January 2011

chime wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

seriously everyone, give up on the knife/bat/sticks thing!!
Apples and oranges.

I am not comparing them. People are here are getting emotional over the tool used that do the majority of killings especially these mass murders. I am asking if we ban guns and crime is still consistant and people find new ways / tools to murder, would they be fine with that. People are attacking guns and are failing to realize and taking guns away will not reduce violent crime. It will reduce gun crime yes, but not violent crime. So my question is, if guns are out of the question and other tools are used to do the killings, will you have issue and want regulation on that tool say a knife? If not why?

In the UK we do have regulations on knife crime ... and as our knife crime has worsened we have increased that regulation. In 2007 the age at which you can buy a knife was increased from 16 to 18. There are also certain knives that are banned.

... and that's not getting into the argument about the necessity of knives to everyday life in comparison to guns

wow... I am speachless...

guns and bullets

Comments

Categories