Moderator: Referees
ukcanuck wrote:
Dude is the Dana Murzyn of the board.
Per wrote:homicide levels [in the UK] are just a third of what they are in the USA

In over 52% of the murders in the US in 2011 in which the race of the murderer was known, the murderer was black. Over half of the victims of murder were also black. But blacks are only 13.6% of the population. Put all that together, and the murder rate in the US for non-blacks was more like 2.6 per 100,000 in 2011.
As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, "Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."
Data sources: UNODC and the Small Arms Survey
To the eyeball, it looks like a more heavily armed population goes hand-in-hand with less murder, as an average. The statistics bear that out: the correlation coefficient is negative, -0.23, and it is statistically significant.
You can look for various trends, but there is no evidence here that the availability of guns leads to more murders. Two of the most heavily armed countries, Finland and Switzerland, have murder rates of 2.2 and 0.7, among the lowest in the world. On the other hand, every country with a murder rate at least 5 times greater than the U.S.'s has at least 5 times fewer firearms per person than the U.S.
Blob Mckenzie wrote:ukcanuck wrote:
Dude is the Dana Murzyn of the board.
Since you're so interested...
Oh btw I liked Murzyn, he was stand up...
And he spent most of the time on his ass when he got into a debate (errrrr....... a fight) Sound familiar ?
People aren't saying " ban guns they are bad " or whatever that drivel you spewed was. People are saying outlaw the automatic weapons that allow some cat to squeeze off 100 bullets per minute.
you are right and there is also no need to spray a room with a 600 rounds when 30 will do... one could do as much damage with firearms that people don't want to ban. you know like a shotgun and a couple of handguns or revolvers...There's no fucking need for it.
If buddy wants to make it rain in the bush then to to a fucking gun shop and go nuts. I happen to know of a good one in Vegas . It's like owning a fucking pitbull for these people, just to say they got the biggest most bad ass dog around. Pitbulls should be shot on site imho.
Blame it on the govt. and the gun companies. The only people who should have access to these types of weapons are the fucking military.
RoyalDude wrote:Looks like one of Topper and Strangelove's brethren let loose the hounds on a couple unsuspecting fireman, killing them both and injuring a few others with the same make and calibre rifle as the one used by Lanza. The carnage, THE CARNAGE!. MAKE IT STOP! continues and continues and continues. What I don't get, this dude here spent 17 years in jail for a previous murder, how the fuck did this nutbar get a hold of such killing machines? I will tell you what, it's Toppers and Strangeloves love for lax gun control laws all in the name of the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
RoyalDude on Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:37 am wrote:Personally, I think we should hand out hunting licenses to non-gun loving people to hunt and kill any NRA member around the world they see fit. The NRA wants guns? How about putting them on the receiving end of them?

Strangelove wrote:
You twisted SOB, stop trying to make it sound like Topper and yours truly are in favour of these shootings.
ukcanuck wrote:I hate that shit, people do that a lot around here, and not just on this issue either...

ukcanuck wrote:Strangelove wrote:
You twisted SOB, stop trying to make it sound like Topper and yours truly are in favour of these shootings.
I hate that shit, people do that a lot around here, and not just on this issue either...

Blob Mckenzie wrote:ukcanuck wrote:Strangelove wrote:
You twisted SOB, stop trying to make it sound like Topper and yours truly are in favour of these shootings.
I hate that shit, people do that a lot around here, and not just on this issue either...
Oh is that what happens ??? You take some very clownish positions on this board. I appreciate differences of opinions......devils advocate for sure but don't go blaming others if they take issue with some of the shit you say uk.
Merry Christmas![]()
okcanuck wrote:Why would anyone bring up stats separating the whites and blacks as far as victims and shooters go? Thats fucking nonsense.
Whats that got to do with anything? Humans in the States are being murdered by guns at a much higher rate because it is legal to own these totally useless high-powered semi-automatic rifles.
ukcanuck wrote:okcanuck wrote:Why would anyone bring up stats separating the whites and blacks as far as victims and shooters go? Thats fucking nonsense.
Whats that got to do with anything? Humans in the States are being murdered by guns at a much higher rate because it is legal to own these totally useless high-powered semi-automatic rifles.
Because guns don't kill people, people kill people and many times they do it for socio-economic reasons.
okcanuck wrote:ukcanuck wrote:okcanuck wrote:Why would anyone bring up stats separating the whites and blacks as far as victims and shooters go? Thats fucking nonsense.
Whats that got to do with anything? Humans in the States are being murdered by guns at a much higher rate because it is legal to own these totally useless high-powered semi-automatic rifles.
Because guns don't kill people, people kill people and many times they do it for socio-economic reasons.
Listen UK you still haven't answered my previous questions. Why on earth do you think an ordinary person in the states should be able to own these semi-automatic weapons? Is it so they can defend themselves or is it so they can have fun at a gun range? And dont give me this fucking slippery-slope bull-shit.
okcanuck wrote:Listen UK you still haven't answered my previous questions. Why on earth do you think an ordinary person in the states should be able to own these semi-automatic weapons? Is it so they can defend themselves or is it so they can have fun at a gun range? And dont give me this fucking slippery-slope bull-shit.
ukcanuck wrote:I never said that we all should be walking around armed to the teeth. There ought to be responsibility attached to freedom, but ham handed "guns are bad, lets ban them" is not a reasonable answer and attacks rights and freedoms.
ukcanuck wrote:dbr wrote:
Hey this is some super sound reasoning. Why not just stop having laws, since it doesn't seem to stop criminals from breaking them?
That's a slight exaggeration don't you think? How do you go from the sound logic that restricting legal weapons to prevent illegal ones being used in crimes won't work to well let's have no laws then?
What exactly is wrong with that?
Oh I don't know, what's wrong with stripping rights guaranteed in the constitution? Perhaps freedom of speech will be next?
Maybe then the next time some "responsible" gun owner and innocent civilian has a kid that wants to ventilate a local elementary school he'll have to do more than go rooting around in mommy's closet to get what he needs.
Does leaving firearms around for children to harm themselves and others sound responsible to you? It sure doesn't to me. obviously, there needs to be responsibility attached to every right.
only if the solution doesn't create more problems than it tries to solve, like starting or continuing a watering down of what it means to be free.Making it harder to kill people is a good thing, even if a given change doesn't fix everything in and of itself.Funny you bring up the prohibition, most studies show that alcohol consumption fell (although certainly not to zero) during that time.
Lets argue about the validity of "studies" of acts done in secrecy...
It was against the law to consume alcohol, where did the data collectors get their stats?
Additionally, even if booze consumption dropped, organized crime certainly got a shot in the arm over prohibition...what makes you think the same wouldn't happen with guns?
I wonder how many lives would be saved by a comparable (30%) drop in gun ownership.. especially if that drop was comprised of the deadliest weapons or the weapons owned by the most menacing demographic or the least responsibly kept weapons?
Do you also think a 30 percent drop in computer availability would help in the reduction of teenagers commuting suicide over Facebook too?
London Met story....
The point of that story was that if the UK is a safer society because it prohibits guns, why does its police force operate like an elite special forces, theoretically the criminals here only have knives?
Well if the "criminal class" was solely responsible for gun deaths in the United States, or if illegally acquired firearms were the sole cause of gun deaths, you might have a leg to stand on....
And you're telling me that restricting the type of weapons sold, or regulating who can legally own guns, or regulating how they can be stored.. none of that is going to cut down on the number of gun deaths in the US? You can talk about fucking Al Capone all you want but Adam Lanza got his guns from his mother's closet.
...
To all of the above...what do you suppose committing murder or shooting an innocent bystander or leaving your firearms for innocent children to blow away their little buddies makes one????
That's right that would make you a criminal who doesn't respect the law. Who doesn't respect the rights they are born with.
And who should be held accountable for his actions...
as an aside, those stats where it says legally obtainable or acquired guns...do they bother to point out the difference between a gun that can be legally acquired and a legally acquirable gun with its numbers filed off...a slight difference don't you think?

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests