US: "Far more gun-related killings than ANY other developed country"

Originally posted by lolita64
Is it me or since the shooting a bunch of gun control shills have appeared on message boards all over the place?

OP, how much the government is paying you for your treasonous propaganda?

Yeah because people that disagree with you must be "shills". How much are gun companies paying you?

reply to post by lolita64


It has nothing to do with people sympathizing with innocent children and grieving families... of course not.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Please read through all 46 pages.

In case you wont the short answer is no.

LOVE IT.......common sense would tell you no....but then again people are just being difficult in light of their preferred agenda.

At this point it has nothing to do with those poor kids that died. They were used up and now that their shock and awe is gone, they throw out false statistics and hope the heart strings are still nice and tight.

Originally posted by SpearMint

It doesn't matter, and neither does the data, the homicide rates of my country isn't the subject is it? All I'll say is that it's very low, especially compared to America. This is irrelevant though.

edit on 2-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

No, it is quite relevent. You talk about "logic" over and over again. Part of logical thought is to examine the data and try to connect cause with effect, not because you "believe" or "feel" what the connection is. You claim that your country has a low murder rate and no legal guns. However, what is the correlation? Did you have a lower murder rate before you had gun control? Did your murder rate go up or down before the gun control? Cause and effect go beyond simple correlation.

If you live in the UK, then your murder rate doubled from 1960 to present, so all of those gun control laws did not help you a bit.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by SpearMint

You can cling on to a rather inconclusive conclusion but it isn't becoming any more proof than it was before.

I showed you mine. Show me yours? I assume it's airtight, absolute, based on real data and not floating precariously on a sea of emotion at all?

The statistics from a logical point of view. I doubt you can see that on your own but I really have no intention on wasting any more time on a subject that shouldn't really concern me. My country has a very low homicide rate and very few guns, it's nice (and no, that's not what I'm basing what I've said on).

What country is it? Then we can look up the data.

It doesn't matter, and neither does the data, the homicide rates of my country isn't the subject is it? All I'll say is that it's very low, especially compared to America. This is irrelevant though.

edit on 2-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

No, it is quite relevent. You talk about "logic" over and over again. Part of logical thought is to examine the data and try to connect cause with effect, not because you "believe" or "feel" what the connection is. You claim that your country has a low murder rate and no legal guns. However, what is the correlation? Did you have a lower murder rate before you had gun control? Did your murder rate go up or down before the gun control? Cause and effect go beyond simple correlation.

I didn't say there was a correlation, I didn't use my country to prove a point, I merely said I was happy because of those things. It is very irrelevant. If you really want the data that much then just look at any other major country with a low homicide rate, it doesn't matter which.

And what you said about the UK isn't true at all, for all we know the murder rate could be much higher if guns were legal. No one knows, but the US certainly suggests that.

reply to post by SpearMint


Actually, that is exactly what we have been doing and exactly what the Harvard study did and the facts contradict the pro-gun control position.

Of course it is about how you feel. That is what drives the controlling side: emotions and feelings rather than logic and reason.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's more than stupid to focus on "gun" murder.

From the Harvard Journal of Public Policy: Would Banning Guns Reduce Murder and Suicide?

Please read through all 46 pages.

In case you wont the short answer is no.

I wonder if these folks who drag out "gun" deaths would be happier if the same numbers applied to non-gun deaths?

Is one better than the other?

Though the method may change the numbers wont. What's more important to you? Changing the method or reducing the numbers? Dont say changing the method will reduce the numbers because the evidence simply does not support that.

The Kates and Mauser "study" is not an official peer-reviewed Harvard study. Some of the problems with the "study" are mentioned here www.voy.com...

For actual peer-reviewed studys on the subject look here www.hsph.harvard.edu...

reply to post by minnow

What is it engrained in American society that presently illicits and continues to illicit the most gun-related killings/rate by far, in the whole world?

self-defense.

funny that such a twisted question renders such a simple answer, eh ?
it's also funny that your opinion piece has no real data included.

discussion of the answer to the question you posed in the OP is welcome.
arguing that your opinion piece is any representation of 'data' is pointless and will be ignored.

oh yeah ... do try to recall that 3 decades of mafia, gang and drug violence have accompanied said gun murders ... do tell, how many more deaths have been prevented by those plentiful gun owners ?
the mafia, gang and drug violence certainly haven't decreased but gun murders have been decreasing for a number of years now ... please explain how that's possible.

reply to post by cripmeister


Thanks for those.

All their numbers are old and so far none have explained how over the last decades firearm ownership has continued to climb, drastically in the last four years, while violent crime including murder is down to lows not seen since the 60's. FBI Crime stats

Seems to me that there isnt any solid irrefutable position one way or the other.

When one finds himself in such a position should the err be to the side of tyranny or liberty?

"I cant promise anything will be better for it but I'm going to restrict your liberty just in case."
or
"I cant promise anything will be better for it but I'm going to fight for your liberty just in case."

There is a statistic to support any claim.

reply to post by Cocasinpry

While a person can not do a mass killing with sticks and rocks, but they can do such, just ask the victims of the Om Shiriko gass attack in Tokyo.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by minnow

 

What is it engrained in American society that presently illicits and continues to illicit the most gun-related killings/rate by far, in the whole world?

self-defense.

funny that such a twisted question renders such a simple answer, eh ?
it's also funny that your opinion piece has no real data included.

discussion of the answer to the question you posed in the OP is welcome.
arguing that your opinion piece is any representation of 'data' is pointless and will be ignored.

oh yeah ... do try to recall that 3 decades of mafia, gang and drug violence have accompanied said gun murders ... do tell, how many more deaths have been prevented by those plentiful gun owners ?
the mafia, gang and drug violence certainly haven't decreased but gun murders have been decreasing for a number of years now ... please explain how that's possible.

If more guns is the solution to gun homicides, are more gangs the solution to gang homicides?
And where's your real data that gang and drug violence have went down?

Originally posted by Cocasinpry

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by minnow

 

What is it engrained in American society that presently illicits and continues to illicit the most gun-related killings/rate by far, in the whole world?

self-defense.

funny that such a twisted question renders such a simple answer, eh ?
it's also funny that your opinion piece has no real data included.

discussion of the answer to the question you posed in the OP is welcome.
arguing that your opinion piece is any representation of 'data' is pointless and will be ignored.

oh yeah ... do try to recall that 3 decades of mafia, gang and drug violence have accompanied said gun murders ... do tell, how many more deaths have been prevented by those plentiful gun owners ?
the mafia, gang and drug violence certainly haven't decreased but gun murders have been decreasing for a number of years now ... please explain how that's possible.

If more guns is the solution to gun homicides, are more gangs the solution to gang homicides?
And where's your real data that gang and drug violence have went down?

That's not logical. That's like saying we should respond to violence by disarming the police since guns cause violence.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


In Tokyo?
No closer example?

But in any case... if gun violence wasn't a concern then why do people chose to use guns to kill people? If bombs and chemical agents were the problem then I'd sure as hell call for a ban on those too but last time I checked bombs and chemical weapons were already illegal.

Guns are a practical weapon meant to kill. There is nothing more practical than a gun.

Except for poison; I still wonder why terrorists haven't tried poisoning our food and water supplies. That freaks me out the most and I do believe that needs closer monitoring. I hate saying that though, always scared I'll give some psychopath some crazy idea.

reply to post by Cocasinpry

And where's your real data that gang and drug violence have went down?

hmmmmm, care to try again ?
i said ...

the mafia, gang and drug violence certainly haven't decreased

reply to post by Cocasinpry

if gun violence wasn't a concern then why do people chose to use guns to kill people?

because gun violence isn't a main concern for gun owners ... all of the other violence that can be deterred with a gun, is.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Disarming the police makes sense to me. Have you seen how many innocent civilians have died because of their reckless use of guns?

"Put the knife down.. Put the knife down!! PUT THE KNIFE DOWN!" *bang* *bang* *bang* *bang*


Way to shoot down a deaf wood carver you idiot cop. Why didn't he use a stun gun instead?

reply to post by Honor93


Oh, that makes more sense. Sorry about that.

NEWSFLASH! More bowling pins knocked down in bowling alleys than on any other golf course in the world!

Could you have found a more biased source creating any more straw men??? Doubtful!

The funny thing about numbers is that they're a lot like prisoners... you can get them to tell you anything if you torture them enough.

Bupkiss!

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Disarming the police makes sense to me. Have you seen how many innocent civilians have died because of their reckless use of guns?

"Put the knife down.. Put the knife down!! PUT THE KNIFE DOWN!" *bang* *bang* *bang* *bang*

Way to shoot down a deaf wood carver you idiot cop. Why didn't he use a stun gun instead?

And completely disregard all of the times police have stopped criminals by using guns?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Disarming the police makes sense to me. Have you seen how many innocent civilians have died because of their reckless use of guns?

"Put the knife down.. Put the knife down!! PUT THE KNIFE DOWN!" *bang* *bang* *bang* *bang*

Way to shoot down a deaf wood carver you idiot cop. Why didn't he use a stun gun instead?

And completely disregard all of the times police have stopped criminals by using guns?

Not at all but I don't believe you're making a case for guns neither. These cops need to undergo more severe psychiatric evaluations. They are no different and certainly not any better than the common citizen who I do not believe should be in possession of firearms.

Do I feel safe when I'm near an armed officer? Hell no.