percephone
Neo Member
you can't really compare Canada and the USA. Remove all guns from the USA and the crime numbers would probably stay the same. It's not the weapons, it's the peoples.
University Is Uneasy as Court Ruling Allows Guns on Campus
- Thread starter Manos: The Hans of Fate
- Start date
- Status
you can't really compare Canada and the USA. Remove all guns from the USA and the crime numbers would probably stay the same. It's not the weapons, it's the peoples.
Link
The Autumn Wind
So a brief Manos thread recap: This is a good idea, because random citizens with guns are more skilled with them than NYPD officers. We know this because we have some stats of officer accuracy during gunfights that are probably not as good as some range scores those citizens probably got. Probably.
toxicgonzo
Taxes?! Isn't this the line for Metallica?
Sure having a gun on you could make the situation worse, it could also better the situation. It's a slippery slope, but the difference being if you have a gun on you, you have the power to change the situation. It's not up to the gunman.
If carrying a gun everywhere is paranoia, then so is wearing a seatbelt. There's a minuscule possibility you'll be in an accident the next time you drive, but you'll wear a seatbelt all the same.
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
According to these statistics, gun-related homicides have actually increased a bit since 2000.
Yes please. Let's allow this woman to legally have a gun on campus.
Don't worry, someone else will be packing and will cap her if she pops off.
EatinOlives
Member
There's an enormous gulf of a difference between buckling up in a car and carrying a firearm to a university. The former is a good safety habit that takes less than a second to do and has no potential to harm anyone. The latter is lugging around a device specifically designed for killing because you're paranoid someone's gonna kill you.
You're only feeding a vicious cycle. Throwing in more guns in a shooting situation isn't going to many anything better, nor is it making anyone actually feel any safer. You're needlessly placing your life in the hands of the judgement of completely random strangers in a situation of life and death. You honestly can't see how things could go worse with everyone having guns in the same situation?
If you honestly believe the only way to truly feel safe in your society is to carry a gun at all times, even in elementary schools, you either need to move far away from where you're living or you've got straight up paranoia.
The thing that people like Manos don't understand is that in countries with strict gun control laws, no one looks at the US thinking "Boy, they sure have it great with their Personal freedom and the ability to protect themselves". People look at the US (specifically the US gun laws) thinking "That is completely insane". Even after such a horrific and traumatizing event as the Oslo shootings, no one came out and said "This wouldn't have happened if people were allowed to carry guns". That thought would never cross anyone's mind, because more guns would only lead to more violence. So instead, people called for even stricter gun laws. People living in these countries look at their own country, they look at the US, they compare the statistics. They know that they are much safer and have much less reason to be afraid. Rapes happen, yet no one calls for the right to bear arms. Instead they call for more street lights, more beat cops and other preventative measures. No one wants more guns.
As compared to her having it at home?
It was stated before in the Jason Alexandewr thread, but the biggest difference between gun control nuts and everyone else is they really think everyone is a potential killer. For all the shit people like Manos gets, at least he isn't under the assumption that strangers are going to kill him.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
"That won't stop anyone who really wants to do stuff."
If argument like this is the ultimate reasoning for any argumentation of this kind, then why we have laws and rules of any kind?
I can just easily say that, for example, the law that forbid anyone carrying a bazooka inside an elementary school is useless since anyone who really want to do it can do it. In fact, any laws and rules of any kind is useless in the face of "why would this or that is needed since anyone who want it bad enough can do it?"
Guns in classroom... that's scary.
If argument like this is the ultimate reasoning for any argumentation of this kind, then why we have laws and rules of any kind?
I can just easily say that, for example, the law that forbid anyone carrying a bazooka inside an elementary school is useless since anyone who really want to do it can do it. In fact, any laws and rules of any kind is useless in the face of "why would this or that is needed since anyone who want it bad enough can do it?"
Guns in classroom... that's scary.
You have laws to punish people who commit crimes. Not to prevent it.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
No. Often times seeing the punishment being carried out to others committing criminal acts is enough to deter anyone who otherwise would do the same.
In fact it is the basic rule: punishment delivered to the A so that the B C D E all the way to Z are afraid to do the same thing. Of course one of the major points of law is to prevent people from doing crimes, if only by "threatening" them of what would happen should they do break it.
Castor Krieg
Banned
Let me break it down for you. More guns = more chances for some nutjob to shoot someone. It is as simple as that.
Regards,
Citizen of gun-free Europe, where we do not get shootings in cinemas and university campuses
No, the aim of the law is both to punish and prevent future crimes by pointing out the consequences of ones actions. I don't give a fuck if someone will be punished by shooting me, if I am lying drenched in blood and dying.
Danne-Danger
Member
Shooters go on massive murder sprees on campus everyday in the US!? Holy shit, I would move.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
How about you use the real statistics from the FBI. And not some other group to suit your agenda.
Oh what happened to Gamieguy? lol
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
How about you answer the question that I've asked you multiple times in this thread already? 6 times higher. WHY?
Oh, and I apologize about using an obscure "other group" such as the United Nations. My bad. I'll try to use a more reputable source in the future.
From this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
So what I get from your own source is that yes, gun-related homicides are decreasing, albeit slightly by a few percentage points. But then again, these stats do not include Florida and Illinois. Especially considering how Florida is considered here on GAF, it would not be unreasonable to believe that the addition of Florida and Illinois data would skew the results noticeably, but not in your favor.
So, in relative terms, things are getting slightly better. In absolute terms, as the article points out, murder rate is a shockingly horrendous 20 times worse in America than in Britain. Is this really acceptable to you? You consider this statistic as something that actually supports your position?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Beats me. Canada's actually own lots of guns and can own things like Short Barrel Shotguns with an an unrestricted firearm.
How about you use the Federal group that's in charge of getting and collating all the data.
Thank you!
Do you have any proof to show that it has raised the national homicide rate?
You don't have any proof to support that.
Yeah, I'm fine with it. Now why is the UK's murder rate still higher or around the same as other European countries with less gun control?
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_trends_in_detail
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/st...0_population,_average_per_year,_2007-2009.PNG
Why is the number of crimes in the UK so much higher than the rest of Europe?
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/st..._by_the_police_-_Violent_crime,_2003-2009.PNG
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
On a per capita basis, Canadians own approximately 1/3 the number of guns than Americans do. From an absolute numbers standpoint, that's 30X more guns in the U.S. than in Canada. Anecdotally, I do not know, nor have I ever known, a single person who owns a gun. It's essentially a non-issue in Canada and pretty much the rest of the industrialized world.
Obviously not from that particular survey, which would be the best way to make a valid comparison. However, data from 2006 shows a murder rate of 6.2 per 100,000 in Florida, roughly twice the national average. It would raise it.
See above.
Beats me. Soccer hooligans?
Mortified that UK's murder rate is same as rest of Europe...
Is okay with 20X higher murder rate in own country.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Live in an urban area? Canada is still number 12 in the world in terms of guns owned by private citizens?
Except that crime was higher nation wide at that point, so the rate is far more likely to have gone down, as it did in the rest of the nation, than stay the same. Also basing crime statistic hunches on what GAF thinks of Florida is a pretty piss poor methodology.
I asked you why it was the same, you ducked by trying to personally insult me and obscure the issue at hand. Why is the UK's murder rate higher or the same as countries with less gun control in Europe?
Cow Mengde
Banned
Point a gun at your teacher, get an A+ on papers.
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
Yes, I live in an urban area. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. And Canada is number 12? So? Are you trying to say "see, Canada has lots of guns too"? If you are, then you've apparently ruled out volume of guns as a possible culprit for the high rate of gun-related homicides in the States. Which would leave maybe... gun... laws (or lack thereof) as the culprit? Instead of saying "beats me" as your answer to why America has 6X the number of gun-related homicides than Canada, can you perhaps speculate with some reasonable thoughts and ideas? "Beats me", which is your go-to response to many posters here, just seems like pretty piss poor methodology.
Florida would have had to cut its rate in HALF since 2006. Are you honestly suggesting that this is likely? And nobody claimed that basing crime statistic hunches on what GAF thinks of Florida was proper methodology. Anybody with basic reading comprehension would've understood the gist of my statement. I'll type slower next time...
I didn't duck. I honestly don't know the answer. And why are you harping on this point anyway when the UK murder rate is the same or similar to the rest of Europe. Their murder rate is 20X less than America's. That's a good thing. It's not a number that you point to and demand to be questioned. It's fine. The number that you should be pointing to and demanding answers from is the 20X. And are you honestly upset at my response? Because anybody reading this thread would have clearly recognized that I simply utilized your own modus operandi here. This is the exact same way that you've treated myself and many others here in this thread. Duck, evade, distract. Interesting that you've recognized this m.o. as obnoxious, yet failed to realize that it is also your own. And as if that wasn't bad enough, you pull out the persecution complex card. Do you even understand how pointing to the 20X less murder rate as being a bad thing is counterproductive to your already tenuous argument? What made you think this? Do you not see it?
Castor Krieg
Banned
Manos: your statistics omit one very important fact - who are the victims? In Europe, where gun control is strict guns are used 99% by criminals shooting other criminals. As I mentioned, in Europe we do not have mass shootings on campuses and in cinemas. Our criminals are busy killing each other.
Do you have related statistics on victims' profiles for US and Europe?
Do you have related statistics on victims' profiles for US and Europe?
Palette Swap
Member
I understand how it would make sense in the US all things being equal (ie a shitload of guns already out there) but honestly, the rest of the west tends to see this more as a Somali problem than an individual right.
Which is paradoxical considering any country in Europe is more likely to get invaded by neighbors than the US.
Which is paradoxical considering any country in Europe is more likely to get invaded by neighbors than the US.
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
Group of unarmed civilian bystanders disarm, tackle and hold suspected armed robber until police arrive.
Nobody died. Nobody. Only one person appears to be hurt, and it looks like an arm injury to one of the bystanders (unsure whether he was shot by the thief or hurt in some other manner). Can you imagine the potential bloodbath that could have ensued had any or all of the bystanders pulled out guns and started blasting away? Maybe Manos can start a thread about this incident?
Nobody died. Nobody. Only one person appears to be hurt, and it looks like an arm injury to one of the bystanders (unsure whether he was shot by the thief or hurt in some other manner). Can you imagine the potential bloodbath that could have ensued had any or all of the bystanders pulled out guns and started blasting away? Maybe Manos can start a thread about this incident?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
You don't? There hasn't been any mass shootings in Europe recently in the past year or so?
Do you? You made a statement with no facts to support it, just saying well anyone who was shot in Poland was a criminal by a criminal. So when you give me Europe's statistics on that and demonstrate you statement is correct I'll look for some on my end.
So you aren't going to reply to the stats and try and make concerned citizens stopping a crime a political point? So if one had stopped him with a gun...bad, if they hadn't good? That makes no sense.
I linked those same violent crime stats from the FBI in another thread, and it seemed like no one there felt inclined to believe/address them either.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
I don't think so as England's homicide rate shows.
Until you provide data you can't make any statement and treat it as fact. Also You did early imply your hunch by saying look how Florida is viewed on gaf.
It is when you imply gun control is the reason and comparative data questions that, which you are still ducking.
No I shouldn't. I took the time to produce data and you have just ignored the questions and implications raised by it.
No you didn't you never have been able to provide facts, therefore you are not using my mo
Not my MO as was point out earlier.
Pointing out your failings to construct an argument is not a persecution complex.
Do you want to stop ducking and address the questions at hand?
Deified Data
Banned
Conceal-carry doesn't disturb me so much - as has been stated, if you're unbalanced enough to shoot up a school, you're not going to care if your concealed weapon is legal or not.
That said, I think it should be significantly more difficult to apply for a conceal-carry license. I think it's something you should have to renew every year, as opposed to every 4 years or in the case of lifetime permits, never. I think the monetary cost for such a license should reflect the immense responsibility it bestows (i.e. it shouldn't be cheap enough to be an "impulse buy"). The wait time should also be longer than a few weeks - I don't trust anyone who needs a conceal license "now, now, now!". I think such things should be treated as the luxuries they are, as opposed to mere ownership of a firearm which I firmly believe is a right.
I don't know why someone would want to bring a weapon to school, but my only argument against it stems from paranoia - the same motivation that fuels pro-gun sentiment. That's the extent of my thoughts on this subject.
That said, I think it should be significantly more difficult to apply for a conceal-carry license. I think it's something you should have to renew every year, as opposed to every 4 years or in the case of lifetime permits, never. I think the monetary cost for such a license should reflect the immense responsibility it bestows (i.e. it shouldn't be cheap enough to be an "impulse buy"). The wait time should also be longer than a few weeks - I don't trust anyone who needs a conceal license "now, now, now!". I think such things should be treated as the luxuries they are, as opposed to mere ownership of a firearm which I firmly believe is a right.
I don't know why someone would want to bring a weapon to school, but my only argument against it stems from paranoia - the same motivation that fuels pro-gun sentiment. That's the extent of my thoughts on this subject.
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
There is the occasional mass shooting there, but it only happens about 5% as frequently as in the States.
I DID reply to your stats. Are you just skimming posts now? I thoroughly belittled your stats in a previous post. Did you not understand it? Here's a summary: (20X higher in U.S.) >>>>>>> (UK same as Europe). And yeah, you're right, I shouldn't make concerned citizens stopping a crime a political point. Perhaps someone here can make a thread about gun-toting citizens stopping a crime. You know... just to balance things out a bit. Oh wait...
What does England's homicide rate show then? According to you. Because to me, it shows that strict gun control leads to a homicide rate that is a phenomenal 20X better than a country that has very limited gun control. What is your interpretation?
Keep up with those distraction and misdirection tactics!
But the comparative data doesn't support your argument. It overwhelmingly disputes it. YOUR data says that there is a murder rate in the UK which we have assigned as our base line. YOUR argument is that other countries in Europe have a SIMILAR or SLIGHTLY better murder rate (btw, there are some that are worse too) and your are implying that this is because of more lax gun control. But there's another country that we can throw in for comparison. This country doesn't have similar murder rates than the UK. This country doesn't have slightly better murder rates than the UK. This country has an ASTOUNDING 20X WORSE murder rate than the UK. By YOUR logic, using YOUR statistics and subsequently flawed interpretation and extrapolation of them, America, with its lax gun control laws, should have either a similar or lower murder rate compared to the UK. That is what YOU are implying. YOU are implying that lax gun control leads to lower murder rates and you are pointing to YOUR European statistics as proof of this. If your implication is true, then America should have a similar or better murder rate than the UK. Again, this is what YOU are implying. But YOUR statistics show quite the opposite. YOUR statistics show that the murder rate is an UNBELIEVABLE 20X higher. Thus, YOUR stats do NOT support your tenuous position.
20X WORSE. WHY? No more dodging please.
No I didn't. I used your data to disprove your "theory". The implications raised by your data actually contradict said "theory".
I don't have to provide facts. I've used your own facts against you to disprove your tenuous position.
I did already. Multiple times. At least, I believe I've answered the questions that you are referring to. But just in case, go ahead and ask your specific questions again, just in case I've missed one or two, which is possible with all of the questions and answers that are flying around in this thread. Maybe you can answer my question as well: 20X higher. Why?
Ravensmash
Member
I'm not going to wade too much into the politics of this, but the idea of allowing students to carry firearms around with them is fairly absurd.
You have security guards right? Why does everyone need to carry a gun in such a place?
I really do not get this mentality that more guns = less gun related incidents, when basic logic dictates that it'd be the exact opposite.
I mean, if this is in response to fears about safety or shooting sprees, then surely there are other preventative measures like metal detectors/security guards than putting more guns into the place.
You have security guards right? Why does everyone need to carry a gun in such a place?
I really do not get this mentality that more guns = less gun related incidents, when basic logic dictates that it'd be the exact opposite.
I mean, if this is in response to fears about safety or shooting sprees, then surely there are other preventative measures like metal detectors/security guards than putting more guns into the place.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Pete would it really kill you to answer the questions.
On British homicides they tend to use knives vs guns. 36% of all homicides in England are with knives.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04304.pdf
On British homicides they tend to use knives vs guns. 36% of all homicides in England are with knives.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04304.pdf
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
I did. I even admitted that it's possible that I've simply overlooked one or more questions because this thread has become a massive jumble of information. As such, please ask away. What questions do you want answered that I haven't answered yet? Honestly, I'm asking you to ask your questions. I will answer them. The real question is whether or not you will answer my questions:
[1] 20X worse. Why?
[2] You claim to know the implications of the UK's homicide rate. What is your theory?
[3] Are you going to let me know which questions I haven't answered yet? Or are you just going to claim that I'm not answering your questions even though I don't know which questions you are referring to and use that as proof that your position is correct? **
**Question #3 is rhetorical.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
1. Brits prefer Knives because they can't have the other object.
2. The implication is that gun control has no overall effect since it is the generally same number as it is in European countries with less gun control.
That's a nice way to ignore the size of the Norway shooting.
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
That's because it's more difficult to obtain guns. As a result, the general homicide rate is 20X less than that of the States. Keep those statistics coming!
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
So what, it's 20x higher? I don't get what the big deal is? You don't seem to want to discuss the implication that the UKs homicide numbers the same as European countries with less gun control.
Also more people use their hands to kill other people in the us than "rifles" and shotguns which includes ARs and AKs... Ruger 10/22s. You going to ban martial arts since hands are far more deadly than a rifle or a shotgun in terms of murders in the US.
Please stop ducking answering the question. Oh did you even bother reading the report linked?
In the end with gun control dead and buried in the US, this is all only academic anyway.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Weapons 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total 15,087 14,916 14,224 13,752 12,996
Total firearms: 10,225 10,129 9,528 9,199 8,775
Handguns 7,836 7,398 6,800 6,501 6,009
Rifles 438 453 380 351 358
Shotguns 490 457 442 423 373
Other guns 107 116 81 96 96
Firearms, type not stated 1,354 1,705 1,825 1,828 1,939
Knives or cutting instruments 1,830 1,817 1,888 1,836 1,704
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 618 647 603 623 540
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1 841 869 875 817 745
Poison 12 10 9 7 11
Explosives 1 1 11 2 4
Fire 117 131 85 98 74
Narcotics 48 52 34 52 39
Drowning 12 12 16 8 10
Strangulation 137 134 89 122 122
Asphyxiation 106 109 87 84 98
Other weapons or weapons not stated 1,140 1,005 999 904 874
1 Pushed is included in personal weapons.
only sometimes? I'm glad pretty much all the fucking time.
2 dead bodies for the price of none!
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
I must apologize to everyone here in the thread, including Manos. He rightly pointed out that a significant portion of UK homicides were knife-related. If we look strictly at gun-related homicides, it appears as though 8% of all homicides in the UK are gun-related. So if we only compare gun-related homicides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate), it appears that America is not 20X worse than the UK. It's 60X worse. Sorry about the confusion. Again, my apologies to everyone...
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
So? Who cares? As we discussed the UK homicide number is near the same as European countries with far less gun control. Why? You are still ducking the question. Why are you afraid to answer it?
The reason is that gun control has no real effect and only serves to protect criminals from the law abiding.
How lax are the other European countries you compare UK to, in comparison to either UK or the US? That they have more lax gun control laws than the UK does not mean much if it is strict enough or even much stricter than what you are in favor for the US. Especially for handguns related gun control.
I always wonder where the logic breaks down for the super pro-gun people.
"There is a huge problem with gun-related murders in the United States. Per capita, the gun murder rate is one of the worst among first world nations. Also among first world nations, gun ownership by the average citizen is some of the highest. Yet, gun-related murders continue to soar. <<<LOGIC BREAKDOWN AT THIS POINT>>> Therefore, we must arm more people and put more guns in schools now!"
I put in the marker where I assume there is some major logical breakdown.
Gun ownership by the average citizen is already at record-highs; gun murders continue to top first world nation lists, with several mass murders in the news just within the past few months. Exactly at what point do you make the next logical leap in following where the problem is?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
You can still own handguns in France and Spain as opposed to not being able to in any capacity in the UK.
Can you enter a random shop that sells them and just buy them or are certain criteria to be eligible for having them, certain criteria that you might oppose? What is the % of the population that has handguns?
That some can own handguns instead of nobody at all, does not mean much you can still have a strict gun control (or stricter than you like) even in allowing some to have access to them.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Gun murders continue to decline.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Umm you know there is criteria to own them in the US? You have to pass a background check that checks to make sure:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheetA person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
Persons who are fugitives of justicefor example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection(2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
.
In Spain alone:
in France... shit, I'll just yahoo answers this one:
SEEMS PRETTY LAX TO ME
I am beginning to see that there is never a logical breakdown with the gun-extreme people; logic clearly never enters into the equation at any point.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Look just because your wrong doesn't mean you need to insult other posters.
Saying that you are not being logical about this subject is not an insult so much as a statement of fact.
Your response to a statement which listed fact after fact about the abhorrent gun murder rate in the US, who basically leads the world among first world nations in gun murder rates, is "gun murders continue to decline." I'll even put aside the fact that the murder rate has declined across the board and that it has nothing to do with guns specifically at all; the point is STILL that even with the -relatively- reduced murder rate, including those for guns, we still lead the world in being huge gun-owning fuck ups.
Maybe the problem is the fact that we DON'T control the guns the way other countries do?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked