Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Mass stabbing on Texas college campus

254 replies to this topic
AH64Hunter
  • AH64Hunter

    Forking and dongles

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2010

#91

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:39 PM Edited by AH64Hunter, 11 April 2013 - 08:43 PM.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 02:28)
don't be dumb.
gun control works when you apply gun control seriously. look at most of the European Union. look at Australia. look at China or Japan.
these places have harsh, strict gun control laws. these places have EXTREMELY LOW violent/gun crime rates.

I'm pretty sure you're forgetting that an ego is the main reason people kill each other right?

Also they don't have high gun violence but they do have the highest of all knife violence to compensate for it.

QUOTE

I'm kind of curious how registering gun ownership is in violation of our second amendment rights, however.

First of all you don't have the rights from any of the amendments unless you're a citizen.

Second, if you don't register your gun you are breaking the law, you can not own an unregistered gun.
You see the thing is if people really had the right to bear arms they wouldn't need to register them just to have them.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#92

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:51 PM Edited by lil weasel, 11 April 2013 - 09:41 PM.

As much as I dislike responding to nonsense 'prove it':
QUOTE (Jan. 9 @ 2013 9:08am Brian Lilley)
According to The Washington Post article... [T]he Obama administration is considering a “national database” of all firearms in the United States to “track the movement and sale of weapons.” If such a database comes to fruition the database will lead to confiscation.

Last year Canada ended its national long gun registry, a national database of every rifle and shotgun in the country that was supposed to help police track the movement of and sale of weapons. When it was introduced twenty years ago critics said the registration of firearms would eventually lead to confiscation, a criticism dismissed as ridiculous, yet that’s what happened and more right up until its dismantling.

As recently as last winter law abiding gun owners who had complied with the registry were having their rifles confiscated. In late 2011 hundreds if not thousands of people who had legally purchased the Armi Jager AP80, a .22 calibre variant of the AK47, were informed that their rifles had been deemed illegal and must be surrendered .

“You are required by law to return your firearm registration certificates, without delay, either by mail to the address shown in the top left corner of this page or in person to a peace officer or firearms officers. You have 30 days to deliver your firearms to a peace officer, firearms officer of Chief Firearms Officer or to otherwise lawfully dispose of them,” read the letter sent by the Canadian Firearms Centre.

The reason for the need to surrender what had been legal firearms was simply cosmetic, the AP 80 looked too similar to the AK47. There were no interchangeable parts between the two rifles, the rifles used vastly different ammunition, had vastly different uses but they looked the same.


And then.... there is:
let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation.

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

Our Sheldon is Pointing out the Nazi's allowed gun ownership smile.gif
The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)Ðthe infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's JewsÐtook place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, The New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest adult males. Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.
Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents.

What this I've been hearing.... In New York State anyone taking Anti-Anxiety medication is having their permits revoked, in the name of Public Safety?

twinkiller
  • twinkiller

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2012

#93

Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:06 PM

ITS THE VIDEO GAMES!!!!! GET RID OF THE VIDEO GAMES!!!!!

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#94

Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:42 PM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 21:51)
As much as I dislike responding to nonsense 'prove it'

Conveniently, that's exactly what you've failed to do.
In every single example you present.



I asked you to provide one single example of mandatory registration of firearms resulting in their complete prohibition. As that's what you claimed would happen, categorically.
You haven't.



The outlawing of a single model of firearm is not complete prohibition.
The outlawing of a particular design of firearm is not complete prohibition.
The outlawing of a particular category of firearm is not complete prohibition.
The outlawing of firearms amongst a particular group of societal members it not complete prohibition.


I do like the emotive appeal of referring to the government of Nazi Germany, but the simple fact of the matter is you still haven't proven your point. You said, categorically, that the registration of firearms always leads to their prohibition. I asked you to quantify that statement with a single example of where the registration of firearms has directly resulted in their prohibition- no if's, no but's, no caveats at all. You have provided me with several examples of where prohibition of particular firearms, or ownership of particular firearms amongst certain people, has taken place, in nations that have had registration (though not always compulsory) of firearms. Which is a completely different thing from the basic tenet of your argument "registration of firearms leads to their complete prohibition". You are accusing the government of a gun grab, after all.

Put simply, you've not demonstrated the simple argument I've asked you to demonstrate. It's a pretty decent justification for an argument you aren't actually making.

So, I'll ask again.

Please demonstrate a single instance in which the registration of firearms has resulted in their complete prohibition.

Still waiting.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#95

Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:43 PM

QUOTE (What!? @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 10:01)
These countries are not the United States of America (to state the obvious). Not mentioning this from a patriotic stand point, just merely stating that these countries have never had the volume of weapons this country has, nor have they ever had a consumer market that is comparable to ours, or a history that insinuates that the citizen not only has right to own  and carry but that it is practically their patriotic duty to do so.

I stand by what I said earlier. We need to focus on fixing people and providing security. I think that's really where there is work to be done.

I don't disagree with you.

but just because this is the US doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to change the culture - even a little - as saving ONE LIFE is still better than saving none at all.
you can always change. nations and people don't remain the same forever. the US doesn't have to be the Wild West of gun ownership. we don't have to be the world's Crazy Uncle with a shotgun and Viet Nam flashbacks sigh.gif

we have to address the issue of gun control.
to say that it's too hard because there's already too many guns is simply waving the white flag. I'm not saying you cut back the supply overnight. but we have to start addressing it somewhere.

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 14:39)
I'm pretty sure you're forgetting that an ego is the main reason people kill each other right?

actually ego is NOT the main reason people kill each other.
most murders are crimes of passion. they're not premeditated. people don't usually have time to carefully think about killing. MOST murders happen spontaneously.

it's simple statistics.

QUOTE
Also they don't have high gun violence but they do have the highest of all knife violence to compensate for it.

so?

I would gladly trade guns for knives.
these countries have SIGNIFICANTLY LESS murders than we do. less murders and less violent assaults. I'd trade for that.

AH64Hunter
  • AH64Hunter

    Forking and dongles

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2010

#96

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:20 PM Edited by AH64Hunter, 11 April 2013 - 10:24 PM.

You are aware that the United States has one of the smaller murder rates in the world and it has the 3rd highest population of all countries right?

Your argument is invalid.

Also you're forgetting about things like organized crimes.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#97

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:34 PM

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 16:20)
You are aware that the United States has one of the smaller murder rates in the world

LOL.

that's not true.
do some research before firing off at the mouth rolleyes.gif

AH64Hunter
  • AH64Hunter

    Forking and dongles

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2010

#98

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:41 PM

Not the one I wanted but it does the job.
user posted image

It looks like you didn't do your research at all.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#99

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:46 PM

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 16:41)
Not the one I wanted but it does the job.
user posted image

It looks like you didn't do your research at all.

rates aren't considering ratio.
just look at the raw numbers.

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

your little picture is misleading.
aside from Africa (which is constantly in the middle of a massive civil war, so it doesn't really count...) the Americas has the highest murder rate BY FAR. it's more than TRIPLE the rate of Europe and Asia. it's almost 5 times higher than in the Eurozone and China / Japan.

AH64Hunter
  • AH64Hunter

    Forking and dongles

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2010

#100

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:06 PM Edited by AH64Hunter, 11 April 2013 - 11:09 PM.

You're not even worth bothering with anymore, you just talk out of your ass and don't even give an explanation as to why guns are the cause of most murders.

It's not high at all for it's population.
Also I was talking about the USA you are talking about America the continent in total.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#101

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:37 AM Edited by El_Diablo, 12 April 2013 - 12:43 AM.

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 17:06)
give an explanation as to why guns are the cause of most murders

I never said that.

I said less guns = less deaths during violent assault.
which is true.

less guns in general = less deaths in general, too.
more people are killed by their own legally purchased guns (by someone they know, usually a family member) in their own home than by random criminals with weapons obtained illegally.

the less guns in circulation, the more lives saved.

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003

#102

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:59 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 17:37)
QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 17:06)
give an explanation as to why guns are the cause of most murders

I never said that.

I said less guns = less deaths during violent assault.
which is true.

less guns in general = less deaths in general, too.
more people are killed by their own legally purchased guns (by someone they know, usually a family member) in their own home than by random criminals with weapons obtained illegally.

the less guns in circulation, the more lives saved.

So, what happens when guns are no longer prevalent and a psychopath who wants to kill a massive amount of people decides to put together a bomb for $100 and a couple trips to Home Depot and Radioshack? People seem to be held up on the idea of, "Oh, well that won't happen," but tell me why it won't.

Meanwhile, I'd like to bring up Russia and Mexico again. Since everyone likes to compare the U.S. crime statistics with these countries who don't allow firearms and have low crime rates, let's compare to countries that don't allow firearms and have high crime rates. What's the difference?

Sivis,

Why is it important to find an example of a country mandating registration and then using that to ban all firearms? I also don't see how finding this type of thing being done for specific types of firearms is irrelevant. It still demonstrates a behavior of mandating registration and then using that registration for prohibition.

Is it really that unreasonable to fear that this might happen? I wouldn't even suggest that's the government's goal... But suppose we mandate registration today, and 20 years from now they try a gun grab. I think that's the way some people are thinking about it; not that it's an immediate desire for the government to grab all the guns, but that it will lay the framework for them to be able to years down the road.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#103

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:04 AM

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 18:59)
So, what happens when guns are no longer prevalent and a psychopath who wants to kill a massive amount of people decides to put together a bomb for $100 and a couple trips to Home Depot and Radioshack?  People seem to be held up on the idea of, "Oh, well that won't happen," but tell me why it won't.

do you have any idea how much more work and knowledge that requires?
it's much more difficult to kill people with a bomb than with a gun, especially homemade.

if that's your only argument against gun control, it's pretty damn weak.

ForumName
  • ForumName

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2012

#104

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:09 AM

QUOTE (Raavi @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 19:49)
QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 20:46)
QUOTE (Raavi @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 12:29)
The Pro-gun advocates sure as hell will have a field day on this one, "Crazy libs want to ban guns? knives are equally as bad! We've got mass-stabbings now. Gonna ban 'm to?!"

You act as if your mockery invalidates the point.

Also, as lil weasel pointed out a lot of people don't realize they've been stabbed, and that's true for people witnessing someone being stabbed. As far as why no one intervened sooner, a lot of people seem to assume they're heroes and would lay down their life in an instant to save someone else's, but past that it's possible that these people had no idea how severely others were being attacked.

To be honest this makes me rethink and possibly revise my stance on gun-control seeing a real-life example that knives are equally if not much more threatening.

This isn't even the first time something like this has happened. A little while ago 22 kids were knifed in China.

http://www.nytimes.c...china.html?_r=0

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003

#105

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:02 AM Edited by SagaciousKJB, 12 April 2013 - 03:11 AM.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 19:04)
QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 18:59)
So, what happens when guns are no longer prevalent and a psychopath who wants to kill a massive amount of people decides to put together a bomb for $100 and a couple trips to Home Depot and Radioshack?  People seem to be held up on the idea of, "Oh, well that won't happen," but tell me why it won't.

do you have any idea how much more work and knowledge that requires?
it's much more difficult to kill people with a bomb than with a gun, especially homemade.

if that's your only argument against gun control, it's pretty damn weak.

Do you have any idea just how simple it really is to make a bomb? Apparently not, or you'd realize how weak your own argument is. People have been making bombs for quite a while, and it doesn't take much more scientific know how than Bubba cooking up a batch of meth. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing, it was a home-made ammonium nitrate ( fertilizer in case you didn't know ) bomb that did that damage.

Meanwhile, it's well documented that pipe bombs were found undetonated after the Columbine massacre. Now what would have happened if instead of two under-achievers, you had a couple of high school kids that had a little more know how?

Have you ever heard of the bombings during the "outlaw biker wars" in Canada? One of the largest explosive devices ever detonated in North America was used in one of those cases.

Not to mention Ted Kaczynski



http://en.wikipedia....ombing#Planning
http://en.wikipedia....umbine_shooting
http://en.wikipedia....uebec_Biker_war
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Ted_Kazinsky

Despite whatever difficulty and success rate of using bombs you perceive, these are just a few examples of their successful use.


I don't really see how a person can deny the effectiveness and use of bombs with these examples, but not to mention groups like the Medellín Cartel

http://en.wikipedia....l_and_terrorism


So again can you remind me why bombs are so difficult and esoteric that a lone psychopath couldn't use them to kill many people?

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#106

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:48 AM Edited by El_Diablo, 12 April 2013 - 03:52 AM.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 21:02)
Do you have any idea just how simple it really is to make a bomb?  Apparently not, or you'd realize how weak your own argument is.  People have been making bombs for quite a while, and it doesn't take much more scientific know how than Bubba cooking up a batch of meth.  Look at the Oklahoma City bombing, it was a home-made ammonium nitrate ( fertilizer in case you didn't know ) bomb that did that damage.

Meanwhile, it's well documented that pipe bombs were found undetonated after the Columbine massacre.  Now what would have happened if instead of two under-achievers, you had a couple of high school kids that had a little more know how?

Have you ever heard of the bombings during the "outlaw biker wars" in Canada?  One of the largest explosive devices ever detonated in North America was used in one of those cases.

Not to mention Ted Kaczynski
So again can you remind me why bombs are so difficult and esoteric that a lone psychopath couldn't use them to kill many people?

you know you're just making my point for me...

Oklahoma City?
that was ONE successful mass-bombing incident. one. maybe if that was a common thing I could see your point... but it's not.
there are mass-shootings almost every single month lately.

Columbine?
those bombs didn't even work. the kids who died that day were killed by guns because it's MUCH more difficult to kill someone with a bomb than with a gun.

Biker wars?
again, that's a rare/isolated incident. it's not like bombs are flying around in public places.

the Unabomber?
yeah he only killed 3 people out of the 30 or so different bombs that he attempted to detonate. the other 20-something people were just injured.

so you're really making my point for me tounge2.gif
thanks.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#107

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:07 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 00:37)
[M]ore people are killed by their own legally purchased guns (by someone they know, usually a family member) in their own home than by random criminals with weapons obtained illegally.
[T]he less guns in circulation, the more lives saved.

Seems these *Facts* come from biased sources. You do remember that Doctor at the CDC who fudged reports?

Taking that kind of simplistic thinking to the end:
Less motor vehicles less collisions, deaths, and injury.
Less swimming and diving less drownings, broken necks, and shark bites.
Less gumball machines, less cavities.



SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003

#108

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:56 AM Edited by SagaciousKJB, 12 April 2013 - 05:00 AM.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 20:48)
QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 21:02)
Do you have any idea just how simple it really is to make a bomb?  Apparently not, or you'd realize how weak your own argument is.  People have been making bombs for quite a while, and it doesn't take much more scientific know how than Bubba cooking up a batch of meth.  Look at the Oklahoma City bombing, it was a home-made ammonium nitrate ( fertilizer in case you didn't know ) bomb that did that damage.

Meanwhile, it's well documented that pipe bombs were found undetonated after the Columbine massacre.  Now what would have happened if instead of two under-achievers, you had a couple of high school kids that had a little more know how?

Have you ever heard of the bombings during the "outlaw biker wars" in Canada?  One of the largest explosive devices ever detonated in North America was used in one of those cases.

Not to mention Ted Kaczynski
So again can you remind me why bombs are so difficult and esoteric that a lone psychopath couldn't use them to kill many people?

you know you're just making my point for me...

Oklahoma City?
that was ONE successful mass-bombing incident. one. maybe if that was a common thing I could see your point... but it's not.
there are mass-shootings almost every single month lately.

Columbine?
those bombs didn't even work. the kids who died that day were killed by guns because it's MUCH more difficult to kill someone with a bomb than with a gun.

Biker wars?
again, that's a rare/isolated incident. it's not like bombs are flying around in public places.

the Unabomber?
yeah he only killed 3 people out of the 30 or so different bombs that he attempted to detonate. the other 20-something people were just injured.

so you're really making my point for me tounge2.gif
thanks.

No, you're just missing my point. You talk about how there's a mass shooting every other month ( a little bit of an exaggeration but I'll run with it ) but that's not typically by a person's design. It's more a matter of accessibility and convenience as has been stated before in the thread so I'm not going to reiterate all that over again...

My point in showcasing these people is that it shows that A) You have people who will learn how to use bombs B) That you have people that will learn how to use them very successfully C) The accessibility to explosives is not very hard to circumvent if even strict to begin with and D) The motivation for using these types of weapons varies greatly. Does that sound like anything you know of? Firearms perhaps?

I don't think it's logical to look at these other countries that have weapons bans and low crime rates and say, "See, no guns, no crime," when you can still point out other countries with gun bans that have high rates of violent crime. There's other factors involved here with all of these shooting incidents than just guns being easily accessible or restrictions being too lax. There's too many instances where the person committing these crimes wouldn't even be precluded from owning a firearm anyway.

I just think that there is a problem in America--really in many other parts than just the U.S. if you really research it--where violence and murder are quite rampant. I don't think that guns being here in great numbers and accessibility or not is really going to have much of a bearing on that situation. When people suggest, "Well if you didn't have mass guns, you wouldn't have mass killings," it just seems like such a band-aid-fix type of idea.

Meanwhile I think the problem is that there's a few different camps of pro-gun people. There are people like me who will concede that having a permit to own and operate a weapon, and not being able to buy an AR-15 at WalMart in under an hour aren't such bad ideas. I also don't really feel that the 2A is imperative to keeping our evil tyrannical government under check, I just believe that an armed society has benefits and that these types of violent incidents are not actually related to the accessibility or prevalence of firearms, and that for the most part all these types of restrictions will accomplish is making someone who is legally able to own a gun into someone who is not legally able to own a gun, and I'm not insinuating a gun grab or ban or something when I'm saying that.

What I mean is that, every time there is more legislation written that furthers restrictions on firearms in some way, implements more background checks, prohibits certain type of people, then there are quite a number of people whose rights get trampled on. They just get swept under the rug for what is perceived as "the greater good" by people who believe more restrictions are actually going to stop these types of incidents. Did the Brady Campaign to prohibit those committed to a mental institution stop Seung-Hui Cho from committing the VT massacre? No, but it did stop thousands of Americans ( maybe millions ) who have had that unfortunate experience of depression or drug addiction preclude them from acquiring a firearm, and is that really right? Have you ever read the questions that are asked on the NCIS criminal background check? In case you didn't know, some people are precluded from buying a firearm due to misdemeanor drug charges. Now tell me which mass shooting incident that stopped?

All that's going to happen with these "universal background checks" and the like is that more people are going to be prohibited from owning a firearm based on even more private and absurd matters, and it's not going to stop any of the type of psychopaths that have actually went and committed a crime like the ones in question. What more reasonable things could they want to check on a background screening anyway? I mean, what happens when instead of people who have been involuntarily committed for suicide watch being prohibited from owning firearms ( as they are now ), we have people who have been prescribed anti-depressant medications being prohibited? Yes that sounds absurd, because it is absurd, but there are already certain types of jobs in which that type of background will blackball you, why should I want my right to bear arms subject to the same type of frivolous dismissal?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#109

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:17 AM Edited by sivispacem, 12 April 2013 - 08:12 AM.

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 23:20)
You are aware that the United States has one of the smaller murder rates in the world and it has the 3rd highest population of all countries right?

Your argument is invalid.

Also you're forgetting about things like organized crimes.

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 23:20)
You are aware that the United States has one of the smaller murder rates in the world

But one of the higher in the developed world. The United States has a proportional murder rate six point nine times higher than elsewhere in the developed world. And a firearm murder rate not far off twenty times higher. Comparing the United States with developing nations that lack proper protections for their citizens is a non-starter because the US is a developed, wealthy nation. It has the highest murder rate of any developed, wealthy nation by a significant margin.

Allow me to use a graph as an example:

user posted image

The US has the highest murder rate in the developed world, and the highest firearm murder rate in the developed world. Period. As an interesting comparison, the UK had 27 firearm related murders in 2010, for a total less than 100 firearm related deaths. In the last four months alone, there have been 3,300 firearm related deaths in the US.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 01:59)
Sivis,

Why is it important to find an example of a country mandating registration and then using that to ban all firearms?  I also don't see how finding this type of thing being done for specific types of firearms is irrelevant.  It still demonstrates a behavior of mandating registration and then using that registration for prohibition.

Because Weasel claimed categorically that the registration of firearms is the first step to their complete outlawing. I asked him to demonstrate this. I'm not disputing the idea that registration makes regulation, or even specific prohibition easier. I'm disputing his totally absurd claim which effectively amounts to "every single nation which has implemented mandatory firearm registration has or will completely outlaw firearms". He's failed to even demonstrate it in one case.

As for whether the fear of it is rational, that's a subjective issue but my view is it isn't really rational if it can't be demonstrated to have actually ever taken place, in recorded history.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 04:02)
Do you have any idea just how simple it really is to make a bomb?  Apparently not, or you'd realize how weak your own argument is.  People have been making bombs for quite a while, and it doesn't take much more scientific know how than Bubba cooking up a batch of meth.  Look at the Oklahoma City bombing, it was a home-made ammonium nitrate ( fertilizer in case you didn't know ) bomb that did that damage.

The profile and pattern of people who use explosives is very different to those who use firearms in spree murders, generally. Bombs are generally used by people who spend a great deal of time perfecting and constructing the device. They're meticulous and well planned, have specific targets and often err on the side of terrorism, whether organisational or lone-wolf, or at the very least organised criminal activity, rather than the traditional "postal" element of a spree killer. My view is that you can't really compare the two in the discussion of mass casualty attacks principally because the attacks themselves are so different. There are rare examples- such as Norway and Columbine, where attackers use a combination of firearms and explosives, but in the most prominent example there we aren't discussing a spree killing, we're discussing an act of terrorism. Similarly, Oklahoma was an act of terrorism, and the bombings during the biker wars were the actions of organised criminal groups.

Put simply, you don't go postal- which is predominantly what we're referring to, "snap" type spree killers- those constitute the overwhelming majority of mass casualty shootings in the US- with a bomb.

AH64Hunter
  • AH64Hunter

    Forking and dongles

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2010

#110

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:44 PM

It may have the highest murder rate in the developed world, but it also has the highest population of the developed world making it a prim target for criminal enterprises.

By any chance does that graph include gangs? I want to know this because the U,S has very high gang violence.
QUOTE (http://extranosalley.com)
.The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2011 lists 8,583 gun related murders for 2010, and the trend is down

Since the trend is down, that would be less than 6,180 gang or criminal on criminal shooting deaths during 2012. Which would leave 2,403 gun related murders that were not gang or criminal on criminal murders.
Since the trend is down, that would be less than 6,180 gang or criminal on criminal shooting deaths during 2012. Which would leave 2,403 gun related murders that were not gang or criminal on criminal murders.

Articles

I would love to get a hold of a graph that leaves out all the gang murders.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#111

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:04 PM

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 17:44)
It may have the highest murder rate in the developed world, but it also has the highest population of the developed world making it a prim target for criminal enterprises.

By any chance does that graph include gangs? I want to know this because the U,S has very high gang violence.
QUOTE (http://extranosalley.com)
.The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2011 lists 8,583 gun related murders for 2010, and the trend is down

Since the trend is down, that would be less than 6,180 gang or criminal on criminal shooting deaths during 2012. Which would leave 2,403 gun related murders that were not gang or criminal on criminal murders.
Since the trend is down, that would be less than 6,180 gang or criminal on criminal shooting deaths during 2012. Which would leave 2,403 gun related murders that were not gang or criminal on criminal murders.

Articles

I would love to get a hold of a graph that leaves out all the gang murders.

So, your argument is that you should ignore gang related murders for the purposes of this?

Even if you do ignore it, the firearm related murder rate in the US, gangs excluded, is twenty times higher than the UK:

27 firearm murders of all kinds in a population of 60m
Versus
~2500 non-gang-related firearm murders in a populationn of 300m.

AH64Hunter
  • AH64Hunter

    Forking and dongles

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2010

#112

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:17 PM


We may have the most guns but we don't have the most guns crimes or violent crimes.
Even without all the flared results from gangs from other countries and gangs that came from here we still aren't that bad.

CryptReaperDorian
  • CryptReaperDorian

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2007

#113

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:18 PM

It's really not hard to make some sort of "destructive device" or "chemical device". There are many weapons, many being easy to make, that can be constructed from things you can find around your home. Mustard gas, Molotov cocktails, works bombs, pipe bombs, and fertilizer bombs are just a few. Saying you need to "perfect" something as simple as mustard gas or a Molotov cocktail is an overstatement. You can also legally own binary explosives like Tannerite, IN THE RED, and Last Man Standing. Furthermore, flamethrowers aren't regulated in at least 40 states, and one can also legally own thermite.

All of these can cause as much, if not more, physical harm than a firearm. They would also most certainly cause more psychological harm due to the nature of those.

stu
  • stu

    I drink it up

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#114

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:32 PM

The problem with that video, and the part where it talks about violent crime, is that different countries have different criteria for what constitutes "violent crime". The UK defines violent crime as basically all forms of physical attack against a person, including sexual assault, and it also includes robbery. Whereas the U.S. has far fewer offences which would count as "violent crime". So those figures it gave are nowhere near being accurate. But of course they don't tell you that in the video, because they only care about pushing their agenda and presenting a biased account.

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003

#115

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:59 PM

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 11:32)
The problem with that video, and the part where it talks about violent crime, is that different countries have different criteria for what constitutes "violent crime". The UK defines violent crime as basically all forms of physical attack against a person, including sexual assault, and it also includes robbery. Whereas the U.S. has far fewer offences which would count as "violent crime". So those figures it gave are nowhere near being accurate. But of course they don't tell you that in the video, because they only care about pushing their agenda and presenting a biased account.

Actually we have so much legislation for violent crime that in some states spitting on a person is considered assault with a deadly weapon if you happen to have an STD. It's actually about the way the statistics are collected.

I think it was pointed out to me by sivis in a different thread once that the difference is that in the UK, if a person was mugged at knife point, that's counted as a knife assault. However in the U.S., that's considered armed robbery or just plain robbery, and not considered a knife assault unless actual bodily harm is encountered. This would give the appearance that the UK's knife crime rate is much higher than that of the U.S.

On the other hand, it doesn't matter how statistics look compared to one another... I mean, yeah the UK knife statistics look great when compared to the U.S., but that's kind of like the chick that brings her fat friend to the party. On their own the UK statistics show raw numbers for how frequent knife assaults happen, and realistically I don't really care whether they have to actually encounter harm or not--I'd consider being mugged at knife point being attacked by a knife.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to say, "Well, look at the UK their crime rate is higher than ours," because of statistics errors, but despite whatever discrepancies there is in numbers the fact of the matter is the UK does have a problem with knife crime and in some ways there's a parallel between the lobbying for more restrictions on knives over in the UK and more restrictions on guns in the U.S.

Basically put, they've been banning knives that are beyond a certain length limit right? Banning blades that lock right? Well, has that kept chavs from stabbing each other or mugging people? Because at a cursory outward look from over here on the other side of the pond, I still see news articles about some teenager over there that has run amok with a pen knife and stabbed someone despite the legislation. And this isn't just my own opinion, I've seen a few people from the UK on various Cutlery forums that have said the same thing.

stu
  • stu

    I drink it up

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#116

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:55 PM

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 18:59)
Basically put, they've been banning knives that are beyond a certain length limit right? Banning blades that lock right? Well, has that kept chavs from stabbing each other or mugging people? Because at a cursory outward look from over here on the other side of the pond, I still see news articles about some teenager over there that has run amok with a pen knife and stabbed someone despite the legislation. And this isn't just my own opinion, I've seen a few people from the UK on various Cutlery forums that have said the same thing.

Knives over a certain length aren't banned, you're just not allowed to be carrying one with a blade over 3 inches in a public place I believe. The only ones as far as I'm aware that are outright banned are flick knives, gravity knives, push daggers, knives disguised as other objects, knives which can go undetected in a metal detector and butterfly knives. Those are the main ones anyways.

And of course you still get offences, the legislation is designed to reduce, not eliminate knife crime.

Belaphron
  • Belaphron

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2013

#117

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:09 PM

I don't think the difference in the murder rate between Britain and the USA is down to gun control. A quick look back at history shows that over the past two centuries Britain had a significantly lower murder rate than the USA, and for most of the time gun control laws in both countries were very lax.

During the mid 1900's you could buy a shotgun in London very easily, while in New York at that time faced restricted gun ownership due to the Sullivan act. The gun murder rate was higher in New York, the overall murder rate was also higher.

There is no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. All over the world you get conflicting examples, it's the people not the guns that are the problem.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D]
    Contribution Award [General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013
    Best Debater 2012
    Best Debater 2011

#118

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:36 PM Edited by sivispacem, 12 April 2013 - 09:40 PM.

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 19:17)
We may have the most guns but we don't have the most guns crimes or violent crimes.

Of all the developed nations on earth, yes you do. In both cases.
Other nations that have a high proliferation of firearms but mandatory registration and training have far lower rates of violent crime.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 19:59)
I think it was pointed out to me by sivis in a different thread once that the difference is that in the UK, if a person was mugged at knife point, that's counted as a knife assault.  However in the U.S., that's considered armed robbery or just plain robbery, and not considered a knife assault unless actual bodily harm is encountered.  This would give the appearance that the UK's knife crime rate is much higher than that of the U.S.

It's basically just a different metric for measuring crime. The primary differences are:

1) In the UK, we count multiple felonies independently instead of just picking the most serious and using that for our statistics
2) Our definition of "violent crime" includes all sexual assaults rather than just rapes, all theft from the person that implies violence, armed theft regardless of whether a threat of violence is made, and all assaults regardless of whether any injury is caused.
3) As you rightly outline, we have specific laws addressing the possession of specific weapons in the case of knives. Because of historic issues with knife crime statistics involving knives are recorded independently of other weapons, which is why the difference is so large.

QUOTE (Belaphron @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 21:09)
There is no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. All over the world you get conflicting examples, it's the people not the guns that are the problem.

Actually, there's a very strong correlation between firearm proliferation and gun crime. Nations that have large amounts of firearms in circulation have high rates of gun crime. Now, the question of whether causality is implied by that correlation is entirely separate.


Stu- the only knifes you missed of your "banned" list are ballistic knives, but they're pretty rare. And though knives are involved in an overwhelming proportion of murders in the UK, the number of murders per 100,000 of population is still trivial in comparison to the US.

AH64Hunter
  • AH64Hunter

    Forking and dongles

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2010

#119

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:22 PM

The U.S is 88 per 100 people with 315 million people, making it the highest in the world yet the murder rate is only 4.2. Without the unregistered guns which aren't on that list the murder rate would be about 2.6 or 2.4.
Why do you people keep over exaggerating it?

Also my Grandmother has been all around the world and only in the UK did they ever steal her purse.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#120

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:44 PM Edited by El_Diablo, 13 April 2013 - 12:04 AM.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 22:07)
Seems these *Facts* come from biased sources. You do remember that Doctor at the CDC who fudged reports?

I never quoted the CDC rolleyes.gif

and even if I did, it wouldn't change the facts.
the CDC doesn't go around fudging all the crime statistics in the entire country.

QUOTE
Taking that kind of simplistic thinking to the end:
Less motor vehicles less collisions, deaths, and injury.
Less swimming and diving less drownings, broken necks, and shark bites.
Less gumball machines, less cavities.

you can't compare apples to oranges.

motor vehicles are not weapons designed to kill.
swimming and diving are not weapons designed to kill.
gumball machines are not weapons designed to kill.

see where I'm going with this?
we're talking about weapons that were designed to kill. we're not talking about innocuous hobbies.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 22:56)
All that's going to happen with these "universal background checks" and the like is that more people are going to be prohibited from owning a firearm

yeah, that's fine with me.
that was kind of my whole point.

you don't seem to think that less guns = less gun crime.
but it does. whether you think it or not.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users