To all you Gun Supporters

[Kutana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDWo6m5hbG4

I noticed that their is a large amount of people who love their guns here and wondered to myself if most of forumfall was just like the boy from this video

[Vessol]

New Jersey.

[PrimalSign]

I must be fucking psychic since I knew what it was before I opened it. Here's a free revelation from my mind's all-seeing eye: You're an idiot and everything you believe is wrong.

There. I saved the thread from becoming another Gun-Control crap slinging fest. No thanks are necessary.

[Nunz]

Good luck on your crusade to change the opinions of forumfallers.

[t1337Dude]

An error has occured, please try again later.

[Blixa]

An error has occured, please try again later.

turn off hq.

The kid's a psycho, that's for sure, but it has nothing to do with using guns for self-defense or defending from government. Also, if the intruder didn't want to be shot, he could've just... like not intruded another person's private home.

"I like the blood" lol

[PrimalSign]

The kid's a psycho, that's for sure, but it has nothing to do with using guns for self-defense or defending from government.

Psst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion)

EDIT: At least you aren't a newspaper (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8237558.stm)

[Blixa]

Psst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion)

wow, really!?!

"actually, it was Lukas's laughing that woke me up, I've never heard him laugh so much" lol

[PrimalSign]

wow, really!?!

Really!

[Blixa]

Really!

!

[Vessol]

I had a friend who's neighbor' house was once robbed, they were mugged and held at gunpoint while his wife was raped. They were liberals and hated guns. It's fucking hilarious.

[Blixa]

I had a friend who's neighbor' house was once robbed, they were mugged and held at gunpoint while his wife was raped. They were liberals and hated guns. It's fucking hilarious.

But... the whole situation would've ended up way worse if one of them had a gun. Imagine if they got into a fire fight or even worse, if the poor robbers were killed.

[Tzacharu]

There's a difference between self defense and being psychotic. This boy, if this piece was real, demonstrated the latter. But since it obviously isn't, there really isn't a debate here. I don't think anyone pro-gun would actually want to use them on humans unless absolutely necessary, and I certainly wouldn't. If I were in that position, I would've held him at gunpoint and got someone to call the police and arrest him. Only if he ever made any quick moves or threats would I make a non-lethal shot.

[Zezune]

But... the whole situation would've ended up way worse if one of them had a gun. Imagine if they got into a fire fight or even worse, if the poor robbers were killed.

OMGZ NO, But den who wuld rapez his wifz?!?!

[Haeso]

There's a difference between self defense and being psychotic. This boy, if this piece was real, demonstrated the latter. But since it obviously isn't, there really isn't a debate here. I don't think anyone pro-gun would actually want to use them on humans unless absolutely necessary, and I certainly wouldn't. If I were in that position, I would've held him at gunpoint and got someone to call the police and arrest him. Only if he ever made any quick moves or threats would I make a non-lethal shot.

"The Onion"

[Lando]

OMGZ NO, But den who wuld rapez his wifz?!?!

For what do you have a goverment? :rolleyes:

[Rahavin]

"The Onion"

Read the next part of his post

[Glaive]

Not this shit again.

[Sqarak]

For what do you have a goverment? :rolleyes:

Most governments consist of limp dicked elderly who's only kick in life is being rubbed in by hookers with baking powder.

[peertje]

I cant see it! what did the video show?

[Sqarak]

I cant see it! what did the video show?

Naked women being pleasured by three stallions and a Labrador. Stephen Baldwin was one of the women.

[jonyak]

I had a friend who's neighbor' house was once robbed, they were mugged and held at gunpoint while his wife was raped. They were liberals and hated guns. It's fucking hilarious.

sure you did.:rolleyes:

and how would a gun being in the house have helped in this situation?

funny this also seems to be a bit of an urban legend. found many stories exactly like this when I googled the exact phrase you just wrote.

seems everyone has a friend thats a liberal hates guns and was held at gunpoint while his wife was raped.

[xel_bar]

Already knew the show. I once fell for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0nnU71ggro&feature=PlayList&p=BwEUZO6cm0Y

[1998altima]

I'm all for home/self defense if it's absolutely necessary.

However it seems some forumfallers are way to eager to shoot someone. They have no clue about the financial, legal, and psychological repercussions.

[Elmi]

Sooooo, if you need guns only for selfdefence, then ... stationary laser turrent in da room! It will cover your liberal wife and won't go with you to kill people in da street!

[PrimalSign]

Sooooo, if you need guns only for selfdefence, then ... stationary laser turrent in da room! It will cover your liberal wife and won't go with you to kill people in da street!

Yes... continue to think such things meat-bag.

I'm all for home/self defense if it's absolutely necessary.

However it seems some forumfallers are way to eager to shoot someone. They have no clue about the financial, legal, and psychological repercussions.

It seems some forumfallers are way too eager to assume negative characteristics in others because they rely on ad hominems to give them the illusion of an argument or a sound position.

[Silverhandorder]

Lol I wondered why the show looked different. In any case it caught me until the kid started to talk. I didn't even catch how retarded the commentators were.

[Skyborn]

Necroing topics that died years ago won't bring forumfall back. Let gun control die along side, socialism, Obama, and Ron Paul.

[jonyak]

Necroing topics that died years ago won't bring forumfall back. Let gun control die along side, socialism, Obama, and Ron Paul.

No.

[Milo Hobgoblin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDWo6m5hbG4

I noticed that their is a large amount of people who love their guns here and wondered to myself if most of forumfall was just like the boy from this video

We dont "love" guns.. firearms are tools.. just like a hammer or a saw.. they just serve a very different purpose. I dont love guns anymore than I love my drill.

What we love is what they represent. Something you will NEVER understand.. and no explanation would clear it up for you.

[paade]

seems everyone has a friend thats a liberal hates guns and was held at gunpoint while his wife was raped.

there you go then, its very common. If youre a liberal and hate guns, you get mugged and your wife gets some surprise sexeh.

[Don Chino]

there you go then, its very common. If youre a liberal and hate guns, you get mugged and your wife gets some surprise sexeh.

I'd rather the wife get mugged and I get the surprise sexxor.

[jonyak]

What we love is what they represent. Something you will NEVER understand.. and no explanation would clear it up for you.

how small of a penis you have?

[Tenebrion]

I had a friend who's neighbor' house was once robbed, they were mugged and held at gunpoint while his wife was raped. They were liberals and hated guns. It's fucking hilarious.

Yeah, and I totally had a friend who's neighbor's house was once robbed, and they were mugged and held at gunpoint while his wife was raped. Their son went to the gun-cabinet, brought out a rifle to shoot the blacks with, and instead, he tripped on his shoelaces and blew his own brains out. The burglars then proceeded to sodomize the wife with the rifle.

They were right-wing tin-hats who hated blacks. It's fucking hilarious.

[Blixa]

Yeah, and I totally had a friend who's neighbor's house was once robbed, and they were mugged and held at gunpoint while his wife was raped. Their son went to the gun-cabinet, brought out a rifle to shoot the blacks with, and instead, he tripped on his shoelaces and blew his own brains out. The burglars then proceeded to sodomize the wife with the rifle.

They were right-wing tin-hats who hated blacks. It's fucking hilarious.

Difference between the two examples: 1st example, family has no chance against burglers without weapons. 2nd example, son died because he was too fucking stupid to handle a gun. While I agree that the first example sounds like it's made up, it still has a valid point.

[jonyak]

Difference between the two examples: 1st example, family has no chance against burglers without weapons. 2nd example, son died because he was too fucking stupid to handle a gun. While I agree that the first example sounds like it's made up, it still has a valid point.

I'd like you to explain how the man in the first example was going to get to his gun, while being held at gunpoint, to save his wife, without gettign shot in the process.

the only "point" that story has, is to take a potshot at anti gun liberals, making people think they got there just deserts, and how ironic it is that it happened to them. It also goes to show how stupid rightwing gun nuts can be, saying that its funny that they were mugged held at gunpoint and his wife got raped, because of a difference in ideology. real funny.

[Blixa]

I'd like you to explain how the man in the first example was going to get to his gun, while being held at gunpoint, to save his wife, without gettign shot in the process.

It was in his house so there's a good possibility that he hears the intruder is breaking in. Then he just needs to grab his gun and can wait behind a corner to kill the intruder.

the only "point" that story has, is to take a potshot at anti gun liberals, making people think they got there just deserts, and how ironic it is that it happened to them. It also goes to show how stupid rightwing gun nuts can be, saying that its funny that they were mugged held at gunpoint and his wife got raped, because of a difference in ideology. real funny.

It's definitely ironic in that story because their "nonviolent" methods that they want to enforce on others (by banning guns) were the cause that they had experienced violence.

The point of the story is to state the consequences of not being able to defend yourself. While it's true that a gun in your house doesn't automatically mean that no crime can happen to you, if you're not armed, there's basically NOTHING you can to to stop being assaulted.

[Sqarak]

It's definitely ironic in that story because their "nonviolent" methods that they want to enforce on others (by banning guns) were the cause that they had experienced violence.


What is it with you folks and absolutes. Why does not wanting to own a gun automatically mean wanting to ban guns?

[Lotharr]

The harder guns are to get, the rarer they are in the country. This means that criminals will have less guns. Hence, you'll have less robberies etcetera involving guns. However, it's too late to change the mentality of people with a law in some places.

[Blixa]

What is it with you folks and absolutes. Why does not wanting to own a gun automatically mean wanting to ban guns?

"They were liberals and hated guns." While the story does not expltcitely state that they wanted to ban guns, as it is probably made up, it's pretty clear that under "liberal" and "gun hating" the author understands the desire to ban guns. Here in Germany were guns for self-defense are already outlawed, anyone not a "right-wing gun-nut" is in favor of them being banned.

[Silverhandorder]

The harder guns are to get, the rarer they are in the country. This means that criminals will have less guns. Hence, you'll have less robberies etcetera involving guns. However, it's too late to change the mentality of people with a law in some places.

This is not true gun crime is going up in countries that banned guns. You know why? Because people sneak them in or make them in the blackmarket. It's not that hard. FFS Britain is an island nation and they are experiencing a rise in gun crime.

[Tenebrion]

some places.

I believe you mean "Red States", otherwise known as "The South". Them red-necks sure love their phalluses.

[Lotharr]

This is not true gun crime is going up in countries that banned guns. You know why? Because people sneak them in or make them in the blackmarket. It's not that hard. FFS Britain is an island nation and they are experiencing a rise in gun crime.

It's no wonder gun crime has risen, if we look at the situation of world. That still doesn't make my original point void. I implied that a smaller audience of criminals will have guns if they aren't available in every shop.

Would it help the situation if they made guns widely available? Has the gun crime on normal citizens increased or is this about gun crime in general?

I've been under the impression that only a bit more organized criminal societies are the most eager customers of such black market. Usually, organized criminals don't practise gunpoint robbery etc. They practise other forms of crime, which are the matter of the police, rather than the normal citizen.

Usually the "normal" citizen who resort to gunpoint violence on unsuspecting targets are dislodged from the society in a way or another. You could have more success looking into that area.

All the arguments of gun supporters seem to be subjective, rather than objective. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[Silverhandorder]

Matriel has good objective arguments. I tend not to concentrate on them since they require more research than I can presently do.

Anyways about gun smuggling, it is low cost to smuggle and the pay off is good. Thugs can afford firearms even if they are a little bit more expensive. I will try and find the links for you this weekend when I got more time.

[Lotharr]

Anyways about gun smuggling, it is low cost to smuggle and the pay off is good. Thugs can afford firearms even if they are a little bit more expensive. I will try and find the links for you this weekend when I got more time.

Of course they can. That was not my point, though.

I implied that a smaller audience of criminals will have guns if they aren't available in every shop.

This would mean a smaller number of crimes with a gun involved.

[jonyak]

Matriel has good objective arguments. I tend not to concentrate on them since they require more research than I can presently do.

Anyways about gun smuggling, it is low cost to smuggle and the pay off is good. Thugs can afford firearms even if they are a little bit more expensive. I will try and find the links for you this weekend when I got more time.

matriels arguments where the same crap. stop sucking his asshole please.

he hasn't posted here in like a year.

[Bissen]

I LOVE THE ONION!

Only news media in the states worth watching! The best part is how they actually give an, although sarcastic, but none the less realistic view on america and its culture and where it's going.

And we all know where that is...

[Silverhandorder]

matriels arguments where the same crap. stop sucking his asshole please.

he hasn't posted here in like a year.

Yet once he drops his links down everyone would stop posting. Eh eh?

[Bissen]

Yet once he drops his links down everyone would stop posting. Eh eh?

People would only stop posting because they soon realized that discussions with brickwalls made more sense. Eh eh....

[Lotharr]

Yet once he drops his links down everyone would stop posting. Eh eh?

You talk about these links in a very mythical manner. I'm not sure if there's anything to be added to the fact, that a strictrer control over guns equals less crime with guns involved.

Sure, you might be emotinally touched when you hear of a person who couldn't defend himself, because guns for self defense are illegal in his country. However, I'm sure that more innocent people would get harmed by guns in the country if almost everyone could get a gun for self defense. It's easier to ignore horrible statistics than the tragedy of one person.

[Blixa]

You talk about these links in a very mythical manner. I'm not sure if there's anything to be added to the fact, that a strictrer control over guns equals less crime with guns involved.

Sure, you might be emotinally touched when you hear of a person who couldn't defend himself, because guns for self defense are illegal in his country. However, I'm sure that more innocent people would get harmed by guns in the country if almost everyone could get a gun for self defense. It's easier to ignore horrible statistics than the tragedy of one person.

Have you ever heard of the UK?

[Silverhandorder]

Ok well here is for research reference. Look for the rate of crime among registered gun owners in Florida. You will be very surprised how much lower it is than anywhere else in the world.

Then compare violence statistics between countries with gun bans and without. You will be surprised that they are rather high for countries with gun bans.

Then try to find an article written on how gun owners prevent two million crimes per year.

Then look at how American's classify gun crime vs other countries. You would find that the criteria for what is considered gun crime here is very broad compared to other countries.

Lastly look up at gun crime rate and how it compares since the ban went into effect for all the countries that banned guns. Also look up violent crime rate.

[Lotharr]

Have you ever heard of the UK?

Welcome to half an hour ago! What about the UK?

[Lotharr]

Ok well here is for research reference. Look for the rate of crime among registered gun owners in Florida. You will be very surprised how much lower it is than anywhere else in the world.

Cool. That's one state out of 50 states. Couldn't I defeat that argument by picking out one state where crime rate is higher than average?

Then compare violence statistics between countries with gun bans and without. You will be surprised that they are rather high for countries with gun bans.

Where can I find these statistics? I'm interested.

Then try to find an article written on how gun owners prevent two million crimes per year.

No, you link me that article instead. I'm not going to do the dirty work for you. Also, I wonder if there's an article written about how many gun crimes are done in USA? I wonder what would that crime prevetion rate look beside that statistic.

Then look at how American's classify gun crime vs other countries. You would find that the criteria for what is considered gun crime here is very broad compared to other countries.

Lastly look up at gun crime rate and how it compares since the ban went into effect for all the countries that banned guns. Also look up violent crime rate.

Where can I find this information? You're failing to give me sources. You could be talking about one country in all these example for all I know.

[Blixa]

Welcome to half an hour ago! What about the UK?

Do I really need to repeat that? I think we all know that the crime rate grew after guns were banned.

[The Cougar]

You talk about these links in a very mythical manner. I'm not sure if there's anything to be added to the fact, that a strictrer control over guns equals less crime with guns involved.

Sure, you might be emotinally touched when you hear of a person who couldn't defend himself, because guns for self defense are illegal in his country. However, I'm sure that more innocent people would get harmed by guns in the country if almost everyone could get a gun for self defense. It's easier to ignore horrible statistics than the tragedy of one person.
Source? Or are these just statements that "sort of" makes sense?

[Lotharr]

Do I really need to repeat that? I think we all know that the crime rate grew after guns were banned.

Are you going to make that into an actual comparison? Are you telling me that I should assume the crime rate is directly linked to guns being banned? Statistics/comparisons like that are fairly easy to make and it has been proved on many occasions. That doesn't mean it's the truth.

I could just as well say that the crime rate grew after British teenagers started having more babies. I think we all know the situation of UK in general and I think that it's silly to assume the gun ban is the only major factor in their crime rate going up.

[Skyborn]

matriels arguments where the same crap. stop sucking his asshole please.

he hasn't posted here in like a year.

Do you remember when he was a mod?

I think at one point he told me I should burn the memory of forumfall's URL out of my brain with a lazer...

[Lotharr]

Source? Or are these just statements that "sort of" makes sense?

They do make sense in the way they were presented. However, like I stated in my post above, you can camoflague information to suit your needs quite easily. This is why I'd like to research the source of this information.

[The Cougar]

Do I really need to repeat that? I think we all know that the crime rate grew after guns were banned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/1440764.stm

[Lotharr]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/1440764.stm

Finally. Thank you. It's kind of vexing to debate againt the lynchmob of gun supporters alone, so excuse me. I might've forgotten something important in here and there.

Anyway, like I said in one of my posts a bit ago: It's too late to change the mentality of people with a law in some places.

It might not help to enforce a law like this on people, if their mentality is different because of the law not existing before. The fact that UK has seen a rise in handgun crime, doesn't mean that countries where guns have been banned for as long as we can remember should make them available. I'm surprised you're starting to build up your argument around this.

[Silverhandorder]

Cool. That's one state out of 50 states. Couldn't I defeat that argument by picking out one state where crime rate is higher than average?
No this was an instance of gun owners not gun crime. We have states with much lower gun crime than Florida. Meaning that you do not get much gun crime from gun owners.


Where can I find these statistics? I'm interested.

Hah if I could point you in the direction I would have provided them my self. I guess the easiest one would be to find gun threads from 2007. Maybe you can just use google. I suck at searching so it takes me a long time.

No, you link me that article instead. I'm not going to do the dirty work for you. Also, I wonder if there's an article written about how many gun crimes are done in USA? I wonder what would that crime prevetion rate look beside that statistic.

Where can I find this information? You're failing to give me sources. You could be talking about one country in all these example for all I know.
Hence why I said wait until this weekend and I will try to find them for you. It's not like I am trying to prove you wrong for the sake of being right.

[The Cougar]

Are you going to make that into an actual comparison? Are you telling me that I should assume the crime rate is directly linked to guns being banned? Statistics/comparisons like that are fairly easy to make and it has been proved on many occasions. That doesn't mean it's the truth.

I could just as well say that the crime rate grew after British teenagers started having more babies. I think we all know the situation of UK in general and I think that it's silly to assume the gun ban is the only major factor in their crime rate going up.
The use of handguns in crime rose 40% in the two years following the handgun ban. Hmm.

They do make sense in the way they were presented. However, like I stated in my post above, you can camoflague information to suit your needs quite easily. This is why I'd like to research the source of this information.
But you stated that "horrible statistics" tell another story than the "subjective story". You could at least back up that statement with a "horrible statistic".

You also stated that "stricter gun control laws lead to less crime committed with guns". I'd appreciate it if you didn't take such assumptions for granted if you really want an honest debate.

[Hargoth]

You guys do realize the onion isn't real right?

Btw I own guns, lots of guns, I'll be damned if anyone is going to take them from me. I'll shoot someone in a heartbeat if they broke into my house. If you don't want to end up dead don't break into people's shit. That's my two cents on gun control :)

[Lotharr]

No this was an instance of gun owners not gun crime. We have states with much lower gun crime than Florida. Meaning that you do not get much gun crime from gun owners.

Does this change anything? I mean, it's one state. If they could've, I'm sure they'd proud to present the same statement about the whole USA.

Hah if I could point you in the direction I would have provided them my self. I guess the easiest one would be to find gun threads from 2007. Maybe you can just use google. I suck at searching so it takes me a long time.

I'm not in the mood to search for shit right now.

Hence why I said wait until this weekend and I will try to find them for you. It's not like I am trying to prove you wrong for the sake of being right.

I know you're not lying to me. However, it's crucial to see the source when you provide such precise statements.

[Blixa]

Are you going to make that into an actual comparison? Are you telling me that I should assume the crime rate is directly linked to guns being banned? Statistics/comparisons like that are fairly easy to make and it has been proved on many occasions. That doesn't mean it's the truth.

I could just as well say that the crime rate grew after British teenagers started having more babies. I think we all know the situation of UK in general and I think that it's silly to assume the gun ban is the only major factor in their crime rate going up.

So, what do you base your opinion that banning guns causes less crime on then? That there's more gun crime in the US than in Europe? Are you then implying that the only difference between US and Europe is gun laws? Gun restriction in the UK is certainly not the only factor, but a part in the "agenda" their government has been pushing for.

[Lotharr]

The use of handguns in crime rose 40% in the two years following the handgun ban. Hmm.

Finally. Thank you. It's kind of vexing to debate againt the lynchmob of gun supporters alone, so excuse me. I might've forgotten something important in here and there.

Anyway, like I said in one of my posts a bit ago: It's too late to change the mentality of people with a law in some places.

It might not help to enforce a law like this on people, if their mentality is different because of the law not existing before. The fact that UK has seen a rise in handgun crime, doesn't mean that countries where guns have been banned for as long as we can remember should make them available. I'm surprised you're starting to build up your argument around this.

But you stated that "horrible statistics" tell another story than the "subjective story". You could at least back up that statement with a "horrible statistic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

USA is third on that list of homicide rate percentage, even though it's a first world country.

[Lotharr]

So, what do you base your opinion that banning guns causes less crime on then? That there's more gun crime in the US than in Europe?

Yes.

Are you then implying that the only difference between US and Europe is gun laws?

No.

[The Cougar]

It might not help to enforce a law like this on people, if their mentality is different because of the law not existing before. The fact that UK has seen a rise in handgun crime, doesn't mean that countries where guns have been banned for as long as we can remember should make them available. I'm surprised you're starting to build up your argument around this.
My personal perspective is that the government must have reasons to take freedoms away from people. This isn't "building up our argument", this is a counter to the statement "gun control is necessary because it leads to less violence". The burden of proof is upon the gun control people.

If you want to demonstrate that banning guns lead to less violence, the situation in the UK isn't a good start.

[Blixa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

USA is third on that list of homicide rate percentage, even though it's a first world country.

That list shows the percentage of homicides committed with guns which is kinda irrelevant as homicides committed with knives or whatever are hardly better. Also, all those lists include also victims killing their robbers, etc, which imo doesn't make them suitable for those comparisons.

[Lotharr]

My personal perspective is that the government must have reasons to take freedoms away from people. This isn't "building up our argument", this is a counter to the statement "gun control is necessary because it leads to less violence". The burden of proof is upon the gun control people.

I gave you proof!

If you want to demonstrate that banning guns lead to less violence, the situation in the UK isn't a good start.

Sure, it's not good in the UK. However, like I've implied several times: The gun ban in the UK went has not been on air for not too long, people's mentality does not adjust to laws in an instant.

[The Cougar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

USA is third on that list, even though it's a first world country.
I thought you were trying to demonstrate that gun control laws would reduce the amount of violence in the US. Even if the situation now is bad because of the amount of guns there, would it be better if gun control laws were introduced, or would it simply take guns away from the law-abiding people there like many claims?

[DeathCorpse]

The harder guns are to get, the rarer they are in the country. This means that criminals will have less guns. Hence, you'll have less robberies etcetera involving guns. However, it's too late to change the mentality of people with a law in some places.



this is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

So your saying that because drugs are illegal that they should be harder for criminals to get.......

scenario I'm a robber, I am going to rob a house, I cased two houses, one I know the owner has a gun, the other doesnt, who am I going to rob, bingo, the person that cant defend themselves.

if you ban guns you only remove them from law abiding citizens not the criminals, thinking otherwise is stupid. Your logic is wrong, and would only promote more violence becasue no on would be able to defend themselves.

Just because you have a gun doesnt mean you are automatically protected, but at least you have a choice in the matter of defending your life, liberty, and property.

The thought process that if the owners had a gun then they may provoke a hostile response from the criminal....

1. that would be the idea...
2. just because you obey every whim of the criminal, does not mean that he will not blow your face off just because you may have seen his face or whatever.

To not have options available to you that could save your life is stupid at best. But thats your choice. You dont see me running around trying to impose gun ownership onto people. If you want to limit your options in such a way that it may cost you or your loved ones your lives fine, but dont tell me that I cant choose to use those options to save my or my families life.

[The Cougar]

I gave you proof!

Must've missed it. Where?

[Blixa]

Yes.



No.

So, let me get this straight: You say that the rise of gun violence in the UK has little to do with gun laws, because there are also other differences with UK how it was before nanny-state and after. But at the same time you're saying that the fact that there are more gun homicides in the US than in Europe is without a doubt the result of gun laws. Even though you acknowledge that there are major differences in culture, etc between Europe and the US. That makes absolutely no sense.

[Tenebrion]

So, gun crime in the UK is up, and we attribute that to the ban on guns, right? Tell me, how many gun related murders were there in England last year, and the year before that?

And how many people live in England?

Thanks.

[Lotharr]

Wow, a shitload of replies. It's easier to fight in groups. Isn't it?

[The Cougar]

Does this change anything? I mean, it's one state. If they could've, I'm sure they'd proud to present the same statement about the whole USA.

I'm not in the mood to search for shit right now.

I know you're not lying to me. However, it's crucial to see the source when you provide such precise statements.
The Florida thing originally came from the NRA, which might be why Silver is reluctant to link to it.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Lotharr]

Let me repeat this once again:

Gun ban will not work instantly in countries where the gun blackmarket is already well established.

This doesn't mean countries where guns have been banned since forever should introduce them for everyone.

[The Cougar]

So, gun crime in the UK is up, and we attribute that to the ban on guns, right? Tell me, how many gun related murders were there in England last year, and the year before that?

And how many people live in England?

Thanks.
Assuming you're talking about the years before the ban? Referring to handgun crimes rather than murders: 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. Handgun ban came in 1997. So you have roughly a 20% handgun crime growth per year after the ban. If the growth before that was more than 20% annually, it would've been a smart thing to do. But somehow I doubt it.

[Lotharr]

this is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

So your saying that because drugs are illegal that they should be harder for criminals to get.......

scenario I'm a robber, I am going to rob a house, I cased two houses, one I know the owner has a gun, the other doesnt, who am I going to rob, bingo, the person that cant defend themselves.

if you ban guns you only remove them from law abiding citizens not the criminals, thinking otherwise is stupid. Your logic is wrong, and would only promote more violence becasue no on would be able to defend themselves.

Just because you have a gun doesnt mean you are automatically protected, but at least you have a choice in the matter of defending your life, liberty, and property.

The thought process that if the owners had a gun then they may provoke a hostile response from the criminal....

1. that would be the idea...
2. just because you obey every whim of the criminal, does not mean that he will not blow your face off just because you may have seen his face or whatever.

To not have options available to you that could save your life is stupid at best. But thats your choice. You dont see me running around trying to impose gun ownership onto people. If you want to limit your options in such a way that it may cost you or your loved ones your lives fine, but dont tell me that I cant choose to use those options to save my or my families life.

I've not been saying that you should ban guns in the USA. I've not been saying that it would take effect immediately. I've not been saying that if such a ban would be introduced, it would work flawlessly from the very beginning.

Also, of course drugs are harder for criminals to get because they are illegal. You're obviously a fucking retard.

[Silverhandorder]

The Florida thing originally came from the NRA, which might be why Silver is reluctant to link to it.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Actually I didn't think I could find in timely manner.

Also Lothar misinterpreted my point on that Florida statistics. Not all 50 states take these statistics. Florida presented a very good opportunity to crack some wacky liberal myths tho.

Let me repeat this once again:

Gun ban will not work instantly in countries where the gun blackmarket is already well established.

This doesn't mean countries where guns have been banned since forever should introduce them for everyone.

Well that would be up to the people living in those countries decide. Personally I only see good coming from that.

[The Cougar]

This doesn't mean countries where guns have been banned since forever should introduce them for everyone.
Why not? Are you saying that people are more likely to shoot each other if they get their hands on a gun after living in a country with strict gun control laws? Interesting.

[Lotharr]

Well that would be up to the people living in those countries decide. Personally I only see good coming from that.

Only good coming from making guns widely available in countries where they're not allowed? Please explain.

[Tenebrion]

Assuming you're talking about the years before the ban? Referring to handgun crimes rather than murders: 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. Handgun ban came in 1997. So you have roughly a 20% handgun crime growth per year after the ban. If the growth before that was more than 20% annually, it would've been a smart thing to do. But somehow I doubt it.

No, I'm actually not curious about statistics from over a decade ago. I'm curious about last year, and the year before.

I'd also like to know where you get your statistics, and how they compare to American statistics. Purely out of curiousity.

[Blixa]

No, I'm actually not curious about statistics from over a decade ago. I'm curious about last year, and the year before.

I'd also like to know where you get your statistics, and how they compare to American statistics. Purely out of curiousity.

Why would you take the statistics from last year and the year before? As the gun policy afaik hasn't really changed much in the last years in the UK, those statistics would be completely irrelevant for the discussion.

[Lotharr]

Why not? Are you saying that people are more likely to shoot each other if they get their hands on a gun after living in a country with strict gun control laws? Interesting.

Indeed. If you could get a gun easily, dislodged people could get some stupid ideas quite quickly. I'm not talking about your ordinary people. I'm talking about addicts who need money, people who have are generally rejected by the community etc.

[Silverhandorder]

Only good coming from making guns widely available in countries where they're not allowed? Please explain.

Guns deter crime.

[Lotharr]

Guns deter crime.

Prove it. Also, if there is a minimal amount of gun crime in the country to start with, there's nothing to deter.

[Silverhandorder]

Prove it. Also, if there is a minimal amount of gun crime in the country to start with, there's nothing to deter.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html Here is what I was talking about previously.

[Lotharr]

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html Here is what I was talking about previously.

Any specific part in there which would prove your point? The whole text is definitely not about gun freedom law making crime rates drop.

[Blixa]

Prove it. Also, if there is a minimal amount of gun crime in the country to start with, there's nothing to deter.

Besides the fact that silverhand posted a link, this is common sense. If I'm a potential criminal and would have to fear being shot by that old grandma I want to steal money from, I would think twice about it.

[DeathCorpse]

I've not been saying that you should ban guns in the USA. I've not been saying that it would take effect immediately. I've not been saying that if such a ban would be introduced, it would work flawlessly from the very beginning.

Also, of course drugs are harder for criminals to get because they are illegal. You're obviously a fucking retard.

my point with that statement was to illustrate that just because something is illegal does not mean it is not still and will continue to be a rampent problem in our country. There is a demand for those products and as long as there is a demand somone will find a way to get the goods to them.

The point being that if you ban guns the only people that will have them will be the people willing to break the law, just like the people who use illegal drugs. your point is mute.

[The Cougar]

No, I'm actually not curious about statistics from over a decade ago. I'm curious about last year, and the year before.

I'd also like to know where you get your statistics, and how they compare to American statistics. Purely out of curiousity.

US firearms murders per capita: 27.9271 per 1 000 000 people
UK firearms murders per capita: 1.02579 per 1 000 000 people


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

[Lotharr]

my point with that statement was to illustrate that just because something is illegal does not mean it is not still and will continue to be a rampent problem in our country. There is a demand for those products and as long as there is a demand somone will find a way to get the goods to them.

I'm not talking specifically about the US. Someone will find a way to get them, but that someone will not be available to any random slag on the street. The demand is lower if guns have never had a strong presence in a country. USA is a completely different matter.

The point being that if you ban guns the only people that will have them will be the people willing to break the law, just like the people who use illegal drugs. your point is mute.

I've stated this a million times: I'm not trying to enforce a gun ban on USA. I'm not implying that it would cure the all of the criminals right away. Just read what I've written before.

[Lotharr]

Besides the fact that silverhand posted a link, this is common sense. If I'm a potential criminal and would have to fear being shot by that old grandma I want to steal money from, I would think twice about it.

What if that just leads to the criminal just shooting up the grandma in the arm right away and not taking the risk?

It's not like criminal minded people would disappear because of the possibility of the person having a gun. My point is, that they'll always figure out the method. Things will just get more gory.

[The Cougar]

Prove it. Also, if there is a minimal amount of gun crime in the country to start with, there's nothing to deter.
He said crime, not gun crime. I'm sure there is plenty of crime to deter most places.



Anyway, the lowest "self-defence in the US with guns" numbers I could find is from some pretty anti-gun people at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt . They claim that the survey they rely on throughout a lot of the paper, which found 1.5 million cases of self-defence with guns per year, can't be right because it only takes so few people to lie to eschew the results majorly, but the number seems consistent with a number of other studies. I originally found the link at http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm .

[Lotharr]

He said crime, not gun crime. I'm sure there is plenty of crime to deter most places.

Wouldn't many criminals get a gun solely because the fear of someone self defending is more rational after guns being available?

Anyway, the lowest "self-defence in the US with guns" numbers I could find is from some pretty anti-gun people at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt . They claim that the survey they rely on throughout a lot of the paper, which found 1.5 million cases of self-defence with guns per year, can't be right because it only takes so few people to lie to eschew the results majorly, but the number seems consistent with a number of other studies. I originally found the link at http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm .

Ok.

[Blixa]

What if that just leads to the criminal just shooting up the grandma in the arm right away?

That's the most retarded argument against self-defense I've ever heard. I thought we were talking about the average shorty; it takes a lot more to kill another person than to rob them and it's also a big risk. No one (exceptions prove the rule) would kill an old grandma for her pocket with probably less than a hundred bucks.

Btw, that's the same argument that was used for rape in the old days. Just don't try to defend yourself, then it won't hurt that much.

[Silverhandorder]

Any specific part in there which would prove your point? The whole text is definitely not about gun freedom law making crime rates drop.

The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall peRiod that rely on Rs' firsthand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.

[Lotharr]

That's the most retarded argument against self-defense I've ever heard. I thought we were talking about the average shorty; it takes a lot more to kill another person than to rob them and it's also a big risk. No one (exceptions prove the rule) would kill an old grandma for her pocket with probably less than a hundred bucks.

I know, it doesn't make sense. However, you'd be amazed how little sense most homicides make. What kind of "average shorty" are we talking about here? What kind of "average shorty" goes around robbing elderly people in the first place?

At the moment, armed robbery isn't even an option for most smalltime criminals in many welfare countries. Having widely available guns would make it an option.

Also, most of the "criminals" who go around robbing random people on the street are pretty stupid. Hence, I doubt they'd consider the relatively small chance of self defense from an elder while she's held at a pointblank range. Gun gives a massive amount of control to people and that's exactly what that kind of criminals would love to waggle around with.

Btw, that's the same argument that was used for rape in the old days. Just don't try to defend yourself, then it won't hurt that much.

That's kind of a different argument. Sorry.

[Lotharr]

They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.

I'd be willing to say that the numbers you've presented don't possibly override the amount of actual crime caused by the law.

[Blixa]

I know, it doesn't make sense. However, you'd be amazed how little sense most homicides make. What kind of "average shorty" are we talking about here? What kind of "average shorty" goes around robbing elderly people in the first place?

That average shorty that commits crime for profit.

At the moment, armed robbery isn't even an option for most smalltime criminals in many welfare countries. Having widely available guns would make it an option.

Whether you're attacked/killed with a knife or a gun doesn't make much difference if you have no way to defend yourself from an attack. Criminal with Knife vs unarmed victim -> Criminal wins. Criminal with gun vs citizen with gun -> could go either way.

Also, most of the "criminals" who go around robbing random people on the street are pretty stupid. Hence, I doubt they'd consider the relatively small chance of self defense from an elder while she's held at a pointblank range. Gun gives a massive amount of control to people and that's exactly what that kind of criminals would love to waggle around with.

That's of course we do not live in a society where many people have guns. If there's a high possibility that a random person has a gun, you can be pretty sure it wouldn't be a secret then that robbing random people would be a huge risk.


That's kind of a different argument. Sorry.

No, it's not. The argument says that the individuals shouldn't be able to defend themselves, because the criminals would then be more forceful. Exactly what you're saying.

[Vessol]

A driver for the restaurant I worked prevented himself being mugged recently on a delivery. He also had a concealed weapon license and the manager allowed him to carry it on deliveries into bad parts of town.

Consequently, a few months ago a driver without a weapon was mugged and beaten the fuck up by some skinny bitch.

[The Cougar]

Wouldn't many criminals get a gun solely because the fear of someone self defending is more rational after guns being available?

In individual cases? Sure. But it's an irrelevant, rhetorical point. The real question should be: Do I believe that we will see more crime and violence if guns are available? And the answer is: No, not based on everything I've read about the subject.


You said it yourself, we shouldn't be arguing "subjective stories" and rhetorical points when we can't properly back them up.

[Silverhandorder]

I'd be willing to say that the numbers you've presented don't possibly override the amount of actual crime caused by the law.

This makes no sense. I already proved to you legal gun owners do not commit crimes.

[Blixa]

This makes no sense. I already proved to you legal gun owners do not commit crimes.

Wait, are you saying that normal citizens who decide to buy a gun do not suddenly become criminals?

[Lotharr]

That average shorty that commits crime for profit.

You know many? If the person saw the victim draw a gun, he could panic and shoot, for example.

Whether you're attacked/killed with a knife or a gun doesn't make much difference if you have no way to defend yourself from an attack. Criminal with Knife vs unarmed victim -> Criminal wins. Criminal with gun vs citizen with gun -> could go either way.

Why is the victim unarmed in the knife scenario? I mean, not many would carry a gun around, either. Hence, in most cases only the criminal would have a gun.

Also, a stabwound isn't half as bad as a hole in head. Like I said: If you're held at point blank range from a gun, it's not likely you'll draw a gun even if you had one. You'll most likely just give away the money.

That's of course we do not live in a society where many people have guns. If there's a high possibility that a random person has a gun, you can be pretty sure it wouldn't be a secret then that robbing random people would be a huge risk.

Are you honestly expecting that many people will start to carry guns around if the law changed? The robbers would just look for people who look like they don't have a gun and surprise them. Honestly, I think the average IQ of a guy who goes around doing shit like that is not very high.

No, it's not. The argument says that the individuals shouldn't be able to defend themselves, because the criminals would then be more forceful. Exactly what you're saying.

You not having a gun doesn't render you incapable of defending. Like you already implied yourself, the robber will more than likely have a knife instead of a pistol if guns are not widely available. That only proves my point further.

[Lotharr]

Wait, are you saying that normal citizens who decide to buy a gun do not suddenly become criminals?

Stroke that e-peen all night long.

This makes no sense. I already proved to you legal gun owners do not commit crimes.

Sorry, I forgot you proved it with one out of fifty states. Also, I'm not talking about legal gun owners exclusively. Criminals will most likely not have legal guns. The black market will get supplied with ease if guns are widely available, though.

[The Cougar]

Sorry, I forgot you proved it with one out of fifty states.
How many states did you have that proved the opposite?

[Blixa]

You know many? If the person saw the victim draw a gun, he could panic and shoot, for example.

Yeah. He could also panic and run away. What's your point? There's an endless amount of possibilities what can happen in any given situation.

Why is the victim unarmed in the knife scenario?

Even if they're not unarmed, being able to handle a knife depends a lot on your physical abilities, women would generally be at a disadvantage and in most cases of knife fights, both people end up getting hurt.


I mean, not many would carry a gun around, either. Hence, in most cases only the criminal would have a gun.


It's their decision whether they want to be ready to defend themselves. They should however be allowed to. Also, even if only in 1/10 cases the victim carries a gun, that's still a very high risk for the criminal to get shot when he tries to assault a random person. Not many people would take that risk for 100 bucks, definitely less than when there's no risk of getting shot when robbing a citizen who definitely has no gun.

Also, a stabwound isn't half as bad as a hole in head. Like I said: If you're held at point blank range from a gun, it's not likely you'll draw a gun even if you had one. You'll most likely just give away the money.

That's stupid. There are other places one can shoot at than your head and in most cases you survive being shot. With the average burglar, I'd hand over my money, wait until he runs away (turns his back on me), draw my gun and get my money back. Of course you can't just draw your gun while he's pointing the gun at your head but unless he plans to marry you or wants to kill you anyways (whether he has a knife or a gun, if you're not armed, he'll be able to if he really wins), he's going to have to move away from you eventually.



Are you honestly expecting that many people will start to carry guns around if the law changed?

Yes. Of course as we live in a democracy, that'd require a good deal of people in your country to be for allowing guns to be carried which means many people would be interested in that.



You not having a gun doesn't render you incapable of defending. Like you already implied yourself, the robber will more than likely have a knife instead of a pistol while guns are not widely available. That only proves my point further.

No, it doesn't. When the robber points his knife at your throat, there's not much you can do.

[Lotharr]

How many states did you have that proved the opposite?

Well, there must be a reason Florida was the only state they mentioned. I'm sure they would've been proud to say the same thing about their whole country.

[The Cougar]

Well, there must be a reason Florida was the only state they mentioned. I'm sure they would've been proud to say the same thing about their whole country.
Do you think it's because the numbers are the opposite in the other states that introduced right-to-carry laws, or because there haven't been enough conclusive studies done there? If the former is true, then I expect someone to dig up the other studies soon (I couldn't).

Another example:

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

Same site as earlier: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Silverhandorder]

Well, there must be a reason Florida was the only state they mentioned. I'm sure they would've been proud to say the same thing about their whole country.

No you do not understand how these studies work. They cost money and resources. You also need a mechanic in place for that to happen. Since the law was recent the study managed to get the data collected in a manner that they could utilize. So it is not surprising that you do not have one for each state in the union.

Besides the numbers are so remarkably low compared to any other gun statistic that it makes perfect sense to come to conclusion that this is exclusively a characteristic of gun owners and not the state demographics. Considering that the state it self has higher gun crime rate just not by the gun owners.

[Lotharr]

Yeah. He could also panic and run away. What's your point? There's an endless amount of possibilities what can happen in any given situation.

My point is that none of the reasons why robbers shoot people make sense in the end. Most of them are just a reaction to the moment.

Even if they're not unarmed, being able to handle a knife depends a lot on your physical abilities, women would generally be at a disadvantage and in most cases of knife fights, both people end up getting hurt.

Look, if we're talking about the crime happening on the street, it'll be unfair no matter what. You'll most likely not get the chance to draw your weapon even if you had the balls to do it.

It's their decision whether they want to be ready to defend themselves. They should however be allowed to. Also, even if only in 1/10 cases the victim carries a gun, that's still a very high risk for the criminal to get shot when he tries to assault a random person. Not many people would take that risk for 100 bucks, definitely less than when there's no risk of getting shot when robbing a citizen who definitely has no gun.

It's not 1/10, though. Even if 1/10 carried a gun, they can't fire it if five guys gang up on him and hold him down before he even notices.

That's stupid. There are other places one can shoot at than your head and in most cases you survive being shot. With the average burglar, I'd hand over my money, wait until he runs away (turns his back on me), draw my gun and get my money back. Of course you can't just draw your gun while he's pointing the gun at your head but unless he plans to marry you or wants to kill you anyways (whether he has a knife or a gun, if you're not armed, he'll be able to if he really wins), he's going to have to move away from you eventually.

So you think he will just stand there and wait? You don't think his friends will not go through your pockets in the mean time? You think criminals move alone? Criminals like that never move alone.

Yes. Of course as we live in a democracy, that'd require a good deal of people in your country to be for allowing guns to be carried which means many people would be interested in that.

I'm sure most would keep the guns at home for defense against burglars. Sure, some would carry them.

However, there's not much you can do when you get pistol whipped in the back of your head and then having thrww guys hold you down on the ground. Not even if you had a gun.

No, it doesn't. When the robber points his knife at your throat, there's not much you can do.

Thank you! When the robber point his gun at your head, there's not much you can do.

[Silverhandorder]

My point is that none of the reasons why robbers shoot people make sense in the end. Most of them are just a reaction to the moment.



Look, if we're talking about the crime happening on the street, it'll be unfair no matter what. You'll most likely not get the chance to draw your weapon even if you had the balls to do it.



It's not 1/10, though. Even if 1/10 carried a gun, they can't fire it if five guys gang up on him and hold him down before he even notices.



So you think he will just stand there and wait? You don't think his friends will not go through your pockets in the mean time? You think criminals move alone? Criminals like that never move alone.



I'm sure most would keep the guns at home for defense against burglars. Sure, some would carry them.

However, there's not much you can do when you get pistol whipped in the back of your head and then having thrww guys hold you down on the ground. Not even if you had a gun.



Thank you! When the robber point his gun at your head, there's not much you can do.
It's funny that you keep coming up with scenarios where the gun owner gets owner. There are just as many scenarios where he can defend himself. Actually 2.5 million.

The difference is that if you ban guns the criminals will still have them. Until the day you eliminate all guns from criminals should you start considering taking them away from normal people. That that I would agree.

[Lotharr]

It's funny that you keep coming up with scenarios where the gun owner gets owner. There are just as many scenarios where he can defend himself. Actually 2.5 million.

Not really, I'm just stating how it would most likely happen in reality. I mean, would you assume an armed robber to move all alone? Would you assume for the robbery to be fair?

Does the 2.5 million honestly mean that there are just as many scenarios where the victim can defend himself properly?

The difference is that if you ban guns the criminals will still have them. Until the day you eliminate all guns from criminals should you start considering taking them away from normal people. That that I would agree.

The thing is, that not all that many smalltime criminals have them in countries where guns have been always under control.

[Blixa]

My point is that none of the reasons why robbers shoot people make sense in the end. Most of them are just a reaction to the moment.

But those situations only arise because those robbers feel save robbing people. If say 3/10 robbers would stop robbing because of the highly increased risk of being shot when robbing another citizen, then that means 3/10 less situations that can end in the victim dying. That's how deterrence works.

Look, if we're talking about the crime happening on the street, it'll be unfair no matter what. You'll most likely not get the chance to draw your weapon even if you had the balls to do it.

Depends on the situation. If the criminal just wants to kill you, you have no chance anyways. If he wants your money and runs away afterwards, that's your chance to draw a weapon and make him give you back your stuff.

It's not 1/10, though. Even if 1/10 carried a gun, they can't fire it if five guys gang up on him and hold him down before he even notices.

We're talking about hypothetical numbers of what would be the case of society changed into being more gun-friendly. I'm aware that as now with guns being outlawed, not 1/10 citizens are carrying a gun.

So you think he will just stand there and wait? You don't think his friends will not go through your pockets in the mean time? You think criminals move alone? Criminals like that never move alone.

lol, of course there are criminals that move alone. And who says you are alone? If guns are allowed or not, that fact has no influence on what's going to happen if there's 1 of you and 3 of them. Either you give them what they want or you're dead. Has nothing to do with if you have a gun or not.


However, there's not much you can do when you get pistol whipped in the back of your head and then having thrww guys hold you down on the ground. Not even if you had a gun.

Again, your point? I never said that guns give you a 100% chance of coming out on top of the robber. Also, you have the same result if the robber sneaks up on you and points a knife at your throat.

Thank you! When the robber point his gun at your head, there's not much you can do.

Exactly, I never said that wasn't the case. However, it's the same with knives or generally any weapon. In those situations, guns are not more dangerous than knives are. However, if the guy was after your money, he's going to step away from you eventually and make a run for it. Then you can just pull out your gun and say "Fuck you, give me back ma stuff or YOU're dead".

[The Cougar]

Not really, I'm just stating how it would most likely happen in reality. I mean, would you assume an armed robber to move all alone? Would you assume for the robbery to be fair?

Does the 2.5 million honestly mean that there are just as many scenarios where the victim can defend himself properly?

If there have been 2.5 million self-defense incidents involving the would-be victim carrying a gun, are you seriously going to dictate to us the way the scenario "realistically" will play out? Please.

[Blixa]

The thing is, that not all that many smalltime criminals have them in countries where guns have been always under control.

It's not like for example here in Europe there are no weapons at all. You're just not allowed to use them for self-defense. You are allowed to use them in a rifle club or for hunting. Criminals here in Germany get them, all of our media are talking about making it harder to get guns because supposedly everyone who knows how to use the internet can easily get one.

[Lotharr]

But those situations only arise because those robbers feel save robbing people. If say 3/10 robbers would stop robbing because of the highly increased risk of being shot when robbing another citizen, then that means 3/10 less situations that can end in the victim dying. That's how deterrence works.

To be honest, we can't make up these numbers. There's no way for us to know at the moment.

Depends on the situation. If the criminal just wants to kill you, you have no chance anyways. If he wants your money and runs away afterwards, that's your chance to draw a weapon and make him give you back your stuff.

You think they won't pistol whip you unconscious? I already said that.

We're talking about hypothetical numbers of what would be the case of society changed into being more gun-friendly. I'm aware that as now with guns being outlawed, not 1/10 citizens are carrying a gun.

Hypothetical numbers never work, though. Also, I meant that even if 1/10 citizens carried a gun, the risk of being shot for the criminals wouldn't be 1/10 because of all the reasons I already stated.

lol, of course there are criminals that move alone. And who says you are alone? If guns are allowed or not, that fact has no influence on what's going to happen if there's 1 of you and 3 of them. Either you give them what they want or you're dead. Has nothing to do with if you have a gun or not.

Not many street robbers move alone. Too much of a risk for them, no matter whether guns would be allowed or not. They almost always move in gangs. The fact that the group picks people who are walking alone says that you are alone.

Again, your point? I never said that guns give you a 100% chance of coming out on top of the robber. Also, you have the same result if the robber sneaks up on you and points a knife at your throat.

Indeed. If we're debating street robbery here exclusively, this means that guns aren't going to help you all that much.

Exactly, I never said that wasn't the case. However, it's the same with knives or generally any weapon. In those situations, guns are not more dangerous than knives are. However, if the guy was after your money, he's going to step away from you eventually and make a run for it. Then you can just pull out your gun and say "Fuck you, give me back ma stuff or YOU're dead".

Hahah. You talk like life would turn into a movie if guns were allowed.

[Lotharr]

If there have been 2.5 million self-defense incidents involving the would-be victim carrying a gun, are you seriously going to dictate to us the way the scenario "realistically" will play out? Please.

Most of the self defense scenarios have probably occured in homes, cars and so on. Blixa seems to be talking about how it'd play out on the street. Learn to read.

[Blixa]

To be honest, we can't make up these numbers. There's no way for us to know at the moment.

How about then you just take your time to read one of the links silverhand provided?

You think they won't pistol whip you unconscious? I already said that.

Yeah, a common criminal that robs you for 100 Bucks will shot on unconscious after you gave him the money. Why the fuck would they do that? To spend 5-10 years in prison for 100 bucks?

Hypothetical numbers never work, though. Also, I meant that even if 1/10 citizens carried a gun, the risk of being shot for the criminals wouldn't be 1/10 because of all the reasons I already stated.

I never said that, but in 1/10 cases, there's a huge risk of getting shot. And as silverhand already said, there are 2.5 million incidents of self-defense with a gun. But yeah, you're right, defending oneself with a gun is impossible :rolleyes:

Not many street robbers move alone. Too much of a risk for them, no matter whether guns would be allowed or not. They almost always move in gangs. The fact that the group picks people who are walking alone says that you are alone.

Yeah, let's only worry about the organized gangs, I mean, if we have guns outlawed, they'd be the last ones to get their hands on them.

Indeed. If we're debating street robbery here exclusively, this means that guns aren't going to help you all that much.

That's bullshit. If you know how to handle yourself well, you can overpower one or two people when you have a gun.

Hahah. You talk like life would turn into a movie if guns were allowed.
Yeah, because it's really hard and unrealistic to be able to point your weapon and someone who's running away.

Most of the self defense scenarios have probably occured in homes, cars and so on. Blixa seems to be talking about how it'd play out on the street. Learn to read.

The streets are one example where guns can be useful, but obviously they're most effective in your own home.

PS: I'm off now for the first, hf arguing

[Lotharr]

How about then you just take your time to read one of the links silverhand provided?

Oh. You read that 3/10 robbers stopped robbing citizen because of the law? Interesting.

Yeah, a common criminal that robs you for 100 Bucks will shot on unconscious after you gave him the money. Why the fuck would they do that? To spend 5-10 years in prison for 100 bucks?

5-10 years in prison for knocking someone unconscious? What the fuck?

I never said that, but in 1/10 cases, there's a huge risk of getting shot. And as silverhand already said, there are 2.5 million incidents of self-defense with a gun. But yeah, you're right, defending oneself with a gun is impossible :rolleyes:

Where'd you pull the number of 1/10? 2.5 million incidents of self defense with a gun, but it's not stated if most of them have happened in home etc. We've been discussing only one possible location.

Yeah, let's only worry about the organized gangs, I mean, if we have guns outlawed, they'd be the last ones to get their hands on them.

Stupid teenagers who beat up and rob people in groups are not "organized" gangs. That's where a lot of Europe's street violence lies in the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9NvJfwF9bI

That's bullshit. If you know how to handle yourself well, you can overpower one or two people when you have a gun.

Not if four guys jump you out of the blue. It's not like you'd have your gun unsheathed all the time.

Yeah, because it's really hard and unrealistic to be able to point your weapon and someone who's running away.

It kind of is, if you're unconscious or otherwise abused.

The streets are one example where guns can be useful, but obviously they're most effective in your own home.

True that.

PS: I'm off now for the first, hf arguing

Bai.

[Lord Caim]

The harder guns are to get, the rarer they are in the country. This means that criminals will have less guns. Hence, you'll have less robberies etcetera involving guns. However, it's too late to change the mentality of people with a law in some places.
Actually if guns are harder to get all it will lead to is a major increase in illegal gun prices, more dealers, and thus more violent gun crimes. It's happened before (i.e. America's War on Drugs).

I don't have a gun because I prefer other methods of self protection. But banning guns can only lead to more gun crimes and an even worse situation than currently.

[Lotharr]

Actually if guns are harder to get all it will lead to is a major increase in illegal gun prices, more dealers, and thus more violent gun crimes. It's happened before (i.e. America's War on Drugs).

I don't have a gun because I prefer other methods of self protection. But banning guns can only lead to more gun crimes and an even worse situation than currently.

Oh, really? Welcome to the fucking club! I'm not talking about America specifically.

Let me repeat this once again:

Gun ban will not work instantly in countries where the gun blackmarket is already well established.

This doesn't mean countries where guns have been banned since forever should introduce them for everyone.

[1998altima]

Criminals are more scared of dogs than guns.

Fact.

There was a study done that proved prison inmates were less likely to rob a house if there was a dog inside than if there was a home owner with a gun.

I wish I had the time to look for the study but I got to eat dinner.

[Silverhandorder]

Stupid teenagers who beat up and rob people in groups are not "organized" gangs. That's where a lot of Europe's street violence lies in the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9NvJfwF9bI

In that case the gun is a perfect tool for some one looking to protect them selves. It is also a perfect deterrent.

In this case teenagers can't do shit since they are unarmed and not many teenagers are willing to escalate to the point of having their brains blown off.

[Lotharr]

In this case teenagers can't do shit since they are unarmed and not many teenagers are willing to escalate to the point of having their brains blown off.

Are you sure? I'm not talking about the ordinary teenager from a suburb. The problematic ones are from the ghetto If guns would be easy to get, it's quite likely that they'd have them.

What about the situation with such groups in the USA? They sure as hell do have guns.

[Silverhandorder]

Are you sure? I'm not talking about the ordinary teenager from a suburb. The problematic ones are from the ghetto. If guns would be easy to get, it's quite likely that they'd have them.

What about the situation with such groups in the USA? They sure as hell do have guns.

Yeah they sure as hell are not doing it here.

[Tzacharu]

"The Onion"

Really? I had no idea.

I had a feeling someone would point that out to me without reading the very next sentence..

[Lotharr]

Yeah they sure as hell are not doing it here.

In that case, is all the stuff about the youth gangs in USA bullshit?

It's basically the same thing, but it has just kind of escalated in the USA. Guns happen to give a lot of control, like I said.

[Vessol]

The vast majority of guns used by youth gangs in America are not legally bought arms.

The reason why it's escalated in the United States is because we do not have a homogeneous society like many European nations. Now as your own nations become more and more diverse, crime will increase as well.

[Silverhandorder]

In that case, is all the stuff about the youth gangs in USA bullshit?

It's basically the same thing, but it has just kind of escalated in the USA. Guns happen to give a lot of control, like I said.

You do realize crime and gun crime especially is a tiny fraction of danger. You are more likely to die in a car wreck then to be killed by a gun. The whole point is that realistically banning guns is a waste of money and does absolutely nothing to improve your safety.

The most dangerous parts of the country are city ghettos where guns are banned.

All this talking we are doing now is over 0.0001 difference.

[Lotharr]

The vast majority of guns used by youth gangs in America are not legally bought arms.

However, the black market is huge because of the wide availability of arms. It's probably easier to get an illegal weapon over there than a legal one.

[Lotharr]

The most dangerous parts of the country are city ghettos where guns are banned.

Hahah, that's so American. Like banning arms in a part of city would solve the problem.

You do realize crime and gun crime especially is a tiny fraction of danger.

You need to consider all the possible perspectives, though. It's a small danger for you.

However, what about the ordinary people living in more shady neghborhoods for example? There's a much greater risk of getting shot in an American ghetto than in a European ghetto.

[Tenebrion]

Why would you take the statistics from last year and the year before? As the gun policy afaik hasn't really changed much in the last years in the UK, those statistics would be completely irrelevant for the discussion.

Are you simple, or something?

We're talking about analyzing data pertaining to the modern social climate of one nation, looking at how many instances of crime occured, as well as how many people exist that weren't the victims of said crime - and then comparing it to another nation.

Honestly, it shouldn't be this difficult to understand.

[Silverhandorder]

You need to consider all the possible perspectives, though. It's a small danger for you.

However, what about the ordinary people living in more shady neghborhoods for example? There's a much greater risk of getting shot in an American ghetto than in a European ghetto.

I would like to see a comparison on that.

[Tenebrion]

US firearms murders per capita: 27.9271 per 1 000 000 people
UK firearms murders per capita: 1.02579 per 1 000 000 people


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

First of all, the statistic you've linked covers the period of 1998 through 2,000,

Second of all, that list shows that, in those two years, there were about 14 gun-related murders in the UK. That means that an increase of, let's say 100%, would have meant that there were an extra 7 murders than the average. And as we Americans know, 7 extra murders is nothing ; a single nut-job could have been responsible for that. When dealing with an extremely small number like 14, you can't accurately judge percentage statistics from year to year, since there's such a wild degree of variability.

If you'd like a more accurate argument, you should try looking at a period of about a decade, then comparing that decade's gun violence with non-gun violence, and then comparing that ses of data to another decade. But even then your statistic would mean next to nothing, since it would not be taking into consideration social variables that differ from decade to decade.

[Tenebrion]

I would like to see a comparison on that.

You're a clueless dipshit if you don't think that he made an accurate statement. Look up the statistic for yourself.

[Gloomrender]

14 per 1 million per year isn't exactly scaring me much. I'd say that's light considering the number of armed criminals we have in the United States. If anything it's evidence that even though we have so many guns, that doesn't equate to the nationwide wild-west that foreigners envision at all. And as I've stated time and time again, 800,000 times a year guns are used in self defense in the US. That makes the 14 per 1 million per year firearm murders look like a drop of rain.

[Gloomrender]

Hahah, that's so American. Like banning arms in a part of city would solve the problem.

That's so foreign, not seeing the irony in this statement.

[Lotharr]

I would like to see a comparison on that.

Me too. I'd be quite sure that the amount of illegal guns per capita is a lot higher in American ghettos, though.

[Lotharr]

That's so foreign, not seeing the irony in this statement.

In case you're implying that America is not the only country which comes up with bad solutions, I never said it would be. It just seems like Yanks have the tradition of making a lot of nonsensical and superficial laws to "solve" problems that have already occured.

[The Cougar]

First of all, the statistic you've linked covers the period of 1998 through 2,000,

Second of all, that list shows that, in those two years, there were about 14 gun-related murders in the UK. That means that an increase of, let's say 100%, would have meant that there were an extra 7 murders than the average. And as we Americans know, 7 extra murders is nothing ; a single nut-job could have been responsible for that. When dealing with an extremely small number like 14, you can't accurately judge percentage statistics from year to year, since there's such a wild degree of variability.

If you'd like a more accurate argument, you should try looking at a period of about a decade, then comparing that decade's gun violence with non-gun violence, and then comparing that ses of data to another decade. But even then your statistic would mean next to nothing, since it would not be taking into consideration social variables that differ from decade to decade.
I linked to a study carried out on crimes committed with handguns after a handgun ban in the UK, which I pointed out rose by around 1000 incidents in two years, translating into roughly a 40% rise or so.

Then you randomly asked about a comparison gun murders in the UK and US for "last year and the year before that", naturally without bothering to find anything yourself. I assumed it wasn't even related (because it strictly wasn't) to the previous link and provided the most recent comparison I could find, which admittedly wasn't very recent. I'm awfully sorry. I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack me for providing statistics you specifically asked for though!

I never constructed an argument around a gun murder increase. In fact, I didn't construct an argument at all! I merely provided a link to the conclusions of a study about a handgun increase, in which you're free to read whatever you want into. At the very least least keep that straw man away from my ass.


But hey, you're completely right. The gun murder number is so small that it isn't statistically relevant. Which is probably why the study looked at the crime growth involving handguns as a measurement of gun violence instead. You're also correct in suggesting that what we can read of decade-long statistics is polluted by other variables. Which is probably why the study looked at only two years of statistics immediately following the ban, trying to catch the society's response to the change, and minimizing the risk of other factors heavily swaying the results.

Of course, I wont claim that these statistics are an accurate representation of the truth. If you can point out the flaws of its methods, or preferably, a contradicting study, I'm all ears. I promise.

[The Cougar]

Most of the self defense scenarios have probably occured in homes, cars and so on. Blixa seems to be talking about how it'd play out on the street. Learn to read.
So let me get this straight: I point out that when 2.5 million self-defense incidents happen annually, you say that "most" of those 2.5 million incidents "probably" happen in homes, cars etc, and that you're talking about how it would play out on the street "realistically". Thus my lacking ability in comprehending that letters in a pattern form a word is the only reasonable explanation left.

It can't be that every single thing you write is nothing but guesswork devoid of any references, speculation on how street gangs will outsmart concealed weapon carriers every single time and authoritative statements on how criminals "almost always" does specific things that leaves the gun owners defenseless on the d34dly str33ts? And therefore it doesn't matter that 2.5 million successful self-defense incidents happen annually, because they all happen in private homes or cars or similar places and statistically never, ever on the street, simply because you say so? So obviously the only available conclusion is the one you reached by continuously spinning scenarios in your head and reasoning with yourself: "guns are bad on the street, they don't work for self-defense"?

Okay, whatever you say then.

[jakeoc]

BANG- and the dirt is gone hahaha retards they deserved it

[StainlessSteelRat]

So let me get this straight: I point out that when 2.5 million self-defense incidents happen annually, you say that "most" of those 2.5 million incidents "probably" happen in homes, cars etc, and that you're talking about how it would play out on the street "realistically". Thus my lacking ability in comprehending that letters in a pattern form a word is the only reasonable explanation left.

It can't be that every single thing you write is nothing but guesswork devoid of any references, speculation on how street gangs will outsmart concealed weapon carriers every single time and authoritative statements on how criminals "almost always" does specific things that leaves the gun owners defenseless on the d34dly str33ts? And therefore it doesn't matter that 2.5 million successful self-defense incidents happen annually, because they all happen in private homes or cars or similar places and statistically never, ever on the street, simply because you say so? So obviously the only available conclusion is the one you reached by continuously spinning scenarios in your head and reasoning with yourself: "guns are bad on the street, they don't work for self-defense"?

Okay, whatever you say then.

rofl

And all the while he's insisting on quatifiable data from the gun rights supporters.

Lothar: conjecture!
Everyone Else: evidence!

GO!

[xpiher]

I would like to see a comparison on that.

Pick up any Intro to Criminal Justice research book :sly:

[Lotharr]

rofl

And all the while he's insisting on quatifiable data from the gun rights supporters.

Lothar: conjecture!
Everyone Else: evidence!

GO!

BANG- and the dirt is gone hahaha retards they deserved it

Oh, wow. You guys are easy to please. It's obviously a triumph when a like-minded individual can write a superficially coherent post. It has to be.

So let me get this straight: I point out that when 2.5 million self-defense incidents happen annually, you say that "most" of those 2.5 million incidents "probably" happen in homes, cars etc, and that you're talking about how it would play out on the street "realistically". Thus my lacking ability in comprehending that letters in a pattern form a word is the only reasonable explanation left.

I'm not saying the scenario I explained would be absolute. However, it's more than likely that you're going to be ganged upon on the street, rather than attacked by one person. This is not always, but most often.

You need evidence? Read a fucking book about it. Watch a documentary about the situation. Whatever. I thought you'd already have the information, so I deemed it would be redundant to explain the obvious. I guess Forumfall never fails to surprise.

You honestly want me to show you evidence for the fact that most street robbers and the likes move in groups? Wake up, we're not playing GTA.

It can't be that every single thing you write is nothing but guesswork devoid of any references, speculation on how street gangs will outsmart concealed weapon carriers every single time and authoritative statements on how criminals "almost always" does specific things that leaves the gun owners defenseless on the d34dly str33ts? And therefore it doesn't matter that 2.5 million successful self-defense incidents happen annually, because they all happen in private homes or cars or similar places and statistically never, ever on the street, simply because you say so? So obviously the only available conclusion is the one you reached by continuously spinning scenarios in your head and reasoning with yourself: "guns are bad on the street, they don't work for self-defense"?

The reason I've asked for reference is because Silverhandorder pointed me to very specific articles and numbers. On the other hand, I did not do this. I talked in quite a general manner. Did you notice?

Is the only way you can reach a valid argument by putting words into my mouth? Quite hilarious. I've never said that they don't work for self defense on the street. I said that most juvenile criminals and similar people move in groups. If you honestly need evidence for that, just go and make an empirical research of the situation yourself.

The thing is, that you build your whole argument over the magical number of 2.5 million self defense occasions annually.

However, you completely ignore the fact that because of the free availability of guns in USA, guns are a lot more popular among American smalltime criminals than among the same people in Europe.

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

Young African-American males have the most elevated homicide victimization rate of any race or gender group. Homicides involving firearms have been the leading cause of death for African-American males ages 15 to 19 since 1969.

This statistic alone proves that something is wrong. Even in the utopistic situation that most of the deaths would be caused by self defense, which definitely is not true at the moment.

http://www.thealaskastandard.com/content/gang-problem-anchorage-real

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicid e_rate

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/06/15/mb-gang-shooting-winnipeg.html

It would be kind of hard to directly investigate if American ghettos have more illegal guns per capita than European ghettos. However, all the information I've gathered involving these subjects implies that American gangs happen to have guns more occasionally than European ones.

The gangs often build themselves around gun violence and the control a gun gives to one person. This combined with the American dream of ultimate material success is not exactly productive. I've seen more than five fairly short interviews of American gang members and you can figure from their words, that guns are indeed what the gangs in America revolve around.

Europe does have problems with youth gangs and the ghettos, but the gun violence rate is still much lower. For example, France has a big problem with its ghettos and youth gangs at the moment, yet only about 1.5 people out of 100 000 are killed with a gun. The same number in USA is nearing six.

Also, to counter the article about the rise of handgun violence in Britain: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in England and Wales is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.

I wonder what the same percentage is in the USA.

[The Cougar]

Lets go back and review some of what has been said in this topic so far. You originally made this claim:

What if that just leads to the criminal just shooting up the grandma in the arm right away and not taking the risk?

It's not like criminal minded people would disappear because of the possibility of the person having a gun. My point is, that they'll always figure out the method. Things will just get more gory.

Now, I posted this:

In individual cases? Sure. But it's an irrelevant, rhetorical point. The real question should be: Do I believe that we will see more crime and violence if guns are available [for law-abiding citizens]?

Which you didn't respond directly to. Still, I'm assuming that you are saying that "If guns are available for law-abiding citizens, it will lead to more goriness rather than less violence", since you're implying that criminal-minded people wont disappear and have to get more organized and get weapons etc, so nothing will really change. (Tell me if I'm putting words in your mouth and this isn't the case.) Of course, you don't really know if things will actually get more gory, you just believe it will be without having any empirical data backing you up.

The Florida situation was brought up again as something that completely contradicts your argument (noticeably less violence after the introduction of right-to-carry laws). You dismissed it as "only one state out of fifty".

You proceed by discussing scenarios with e.g. Blixa, which certainly are very general (oh wow, I did notice!), very made up, and very lacking in any kind of documentation. I made fun of you for it in my previous post, since you earlier touted how we need to look at the "horrible statistics" regarding gun control, instead of "subjective stories". But while I might have thought that whole discussion was stupid because it wasn't getting us anywhere closer to a conclusion, this part doesn't really matter. What's important is that Silver said this:

It's funny that you keep coming up with scenarios where the gun owner gets owner. [Assuming: "criminal gets the gun owner"] There are just as many scenarios where he can defend himself. Actually 2.5 million.

Now you said:

Not really, I'm just stating how it would most likely happen in reality. [...]

So I made my point: If 2.5 million self-defense incidents happen every year, even if most of them are in private homes, a reasonable amount (say, a not unreasonably high number like under 5% would still translate to over 100 000 cases annually) of them is going to be on the streets, and it's going to be relevant. Therefore you shouldn't try to dismiss it like it seems you were doing, and go on and on about how street gangs would outsmart concealed weapon carriers when we already have statistics that show that they are in fact successfully defending themselves.

Then I made fun of you, the way you construct your arguments and your authoritative attitude, even when you've failed to document any of your arguments with factual evidence or empirical data. My satire seems to have confused you, however. Even though everything I said was simple ridicule and obviously over-the-top (though not that far away from the truth considering what you've said in this topic so far), you somehow got so hung up on the idea that I thought one sentence of everything you posted was wrong:

"It's more than likely that you're going to be ganged upon on the street, rather than attacked by one person."

...


Right. No, I didn't have a problem with that.

[The Cougar]

The thing is, that you build your whole argument over the magical number of 2.5 million self defense occasions annually.
[...]
This is directed at Silver and his post about banning guns not increasing your safety, right? But his argument isn't based on self-defense numbers only, it's based on the fact that nothing seems to suggest that banning guns make anything more safe.


Also, to counter the article about the rise of handgun violence in Britain: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in England and Wales is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.

I wonder what the same percentage is in the USA.
You realize that this does nothing to counter that study..? The study showed that two years after a handgun ban, gun crime had rose with around 1000 incidents, roughly a 40% increase. This suggests that banning handguns actually doesn't reduce gun violence.

Even if in 2007 gun crime accounted for 0.5% of "all crime" in Britain, and even if it's higher in the US, it does nothing to change this.

By the way, you're so eager to point out the differences between Britain and a country with a rampant gun black-market like the US in other posts, and you completely ignore it now.

[StainlessSteelRat]

However, you completely ignore the fact that because of the free availability of guns in USA, guns are a lot more popular among American smalltime criminals than among the same people in Europe.

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

This statistic alone proves that something is wrong. Even in the utopistic situation that most of the deaths would be caused by self defense, which definitely is not true at the moment.

What does it prove? Stats are fine and dandy, but drawing the wrong conclusion makes them pointless. All this shows is we have a gang/poverty problem. There is no evidence of causation between the violence and guns.

http://www.thealaskastandard.com/content/gang-problem-anchorage-real

Oh noes! A gang news story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicid e_rate

A comparative analysis of intentional homicide data must be conducted carefully. This is because the legal definition of ‘intentional homicide’ differs among countries. Intentional homicide may or may not include assault leading to death, infanticide and assisted suicide or euthanasia.

FYI - The US includes suicide, look at your first link.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/06/15/mb-gang-shooting-winnipeg.html

More anecdotes.

For example, France has a big problem with its ghettos and youth gangs at the moment, yet only about 1.5 people out of 100 000 are killed with a gun. The same number in USA is nearing six.

It's 1.6 and that stat is total homicides. It has nothing to do w/ youth gangs. US is 5.8 and includes suicides which account for 54%. Does France include suicides?

Regardless, the key question is not whether guns are used more often, but whether gun control reduces overall violence. The point of gun control should not be to reduce gun violence all the while maintaining a static homicide rate. So, unless you can show evidence that demonstrates overall reductions, gun control is not the answer.

[Nevron]

This multi-paged thread was caused by a fucking Onion skit?

[PrimalSign]

This multi-paged thread was caused by a fucking Onion skit?

Don't underestimate Forumfall stupidity

[Lotharr]

What is this satire you're talking about, Cougar?

:)