The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (2 Viewers)

[David Spade]

You still havent provided a single shred of evidence showing that higher rates of gun ownership correlates with higher gun crime bro

thus you arguement fails from the start, because no such evidence exists.

In fact in developed countries, the opposite seems to be true.

 

[redmayne]

You still havent provided a single shred of evidence showing that higher rates of gun ownership correlates with higher gun crime bro

thus you arguement fails from the start, because no such evidence exists.

In fact in developed countries, the opposite seems to be true.

Hey, when I defeat your arguments, don't just try and dodge it and move on, at least have a feeble go at resurrecting them.

Haven't I? Please go back to the article I posted.

America.

It's the most powerful of all developed countries, perhaps the most advanced. They have huge gun ownership, something like 350 million guns I think, and 75 people are murdered each day from being shot.

Straightforward evidence, it's all pretty clear really.

Oh wow! The evidence exists! Therefore my argument not only doesn't fail, but it's vindicated.

Good day to you.

 

[David Spade]

I disproved the facts of that article. 75 people a day are not murdered from being shot.

Ad hom guy

Just because the US has high rates of gun ownership and higher rates of gun crime does not mean there is a correlation between the two

this is where i provided switzerland and finland as an example you dense fuck

they also have high rates of gun ownership, but low rates of gun crime

therefore you argument that high rates of gun ownership = high rates of gun crime is fucking wrong and childish

are you that fucking dense

it is well recognised that the areas of high gun crime in america are urban low socio economic areas. these areas coincidently have lower rates of gun ownership

what is so hard to understand?

 

[Ethanescence]

I think it's not so much the high rates of gun ownership, than it is the limited extent of gun regulation of that ownership. I think if it was harder to obtain guns (e.g. stringent psychological testing before allowing a gun license) and there was increased regulation of those guns once owned (e.g. safe storage of guns, increased education about gun control), then there would possible be less crimes - or at least less accidental crimes.

this is where i provided switzerland and finland as an example you dense fuck

Still, the US has 90 guns per 100 people, while Switzerland only has 46 per 100 and Finland 32 per 100.

I hardly call that comparative gun ownership. The US has almost 2 times the number of per capita gun ownership than Switzerland.

 

[redmayne]

I disproved the facts of that article. 75 people a day are not murdered from being shot.

Sorry, you're quite right. I was wrong, it's 84 people a day. Unless you're going to say that's wrong too? What do your stats say? Where did you get them?

Ad hom guy

dense fuck

Ummm...?

therefore you argument that high rates of gun ownership = high rates of gun crime is fucking wrong and childish

are you that fucking dense

it is well recognised that the areas of high gun crime in america are urban low socio economic areas. these areas coincidently have lower rates of gun ownership

what is so hard to understand?

So they...shoot their victims with...knives?

You serious? That argument is SO RIDICULOUS. High gun availability in those areas is the ONLY reason there is high gun crime! What could the other reasons be! That argument is fundamentally flawed, and pathetic.

"lower rates of guns ownership"...what an ambiguous statement. Lower rates of gun ownership than who? The Taliban?

Areas of high gun crime have that violence because of the availability of guns. Are you seriously disputing that?? Guns are easy to get, therefore they use them to commit crimes and kill people. That is the connection. And trust me, it's neither wrong nor childish.

 

[David Spade]

Exactly. But why should gun ownership be limited once those requirements are met?

I dont even care about the issue, i have all the guns i want + some more.

I just find it retarded that people will argue against it when their argument is factually incorrect and a poorly concieved straw man at best.

 

[David Spade]

Sorry, you're quite right. I was wrong, it's 84 people a day. Unless you're going to say that's wrong too? What do your stats say? Where did you get them?



Ummm...?



So they...shoot their victims with...knives?

You serious? That argument is SO RIDICULOUS. High gun availability in those areas is the ONLY reason there is high gun crime! What could the other reasons be! That argument is fundamentally flawed, and pathetic.

"lower rates of guns ownership"...what an ambiguous statement. Lower rates of gun ownership than who? The Taliban?

Areas of high gun crime have that violence because of the availability of guns. Are you seriously disputing that?? Guns are easy to get, therefore they use them to commit crimes and kill people. That is the connection. And trust me, it's neither wrong nor childish.

Yet another poorly concieved and factually incorrect argument my dense friend.

USA has 2.97 murders by firearm per 100.000 people. with a population of ~30000000 this equates to 8910 murders per year (in 2000) from guns. this is 24 per day.

These statistics were obtained from;
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

"
In the United States, cities tend to have higher gun crime rates but lower rates of gun ownership, compared with rural areas which tend to have lower gun crime rates but higher rates of gun ownership.[26] Some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. In 2005, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns in the United States, at 33% of all homes in the state,[27] and had a homicide rate of 1.7 of every 100,000.[28] High rates of gang membership and gang violence in urban areas have been used to explain these differences.[29]"


Your argument is once again show to be wrong.

Sources:

Williams, Kirk R.; Elliott, Delbert S.; Hamburg, Beatrix A. (1998). Violence in American schools: a new perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 133. ISBN 0-521-64418-6.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/192378.pdf

D.C. Ranks Well in New Gun Report - wtop.com

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/09statab/law.pdf

 

[Ethanescence]

Yet another poorly concieved and factually incorrect argument my dense friend.

USA has 2.97 murders by firearm per 100.000 people. with a population of ~30000000 this equates to 8910 murders per year (in 2000) from guns. this is 24 per day.

These statistics were obtained from;
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

"
In the United States, cities tend to have higher gun crime rates but lower rates of gun ownership, compared with rural areas which tend to have lower gun crime rates but higher rates of gun ownership.[26] Some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. In 2005, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns in the United States, at 33% of all homes in the state,[27] and had a homicide rate of 1.7 of every 100,000.[28] High rates of gang membership and gang violence in urban areas have been used to explain these differences.[29]"


Your argument is once again show to be wrong.

Sources:

Williams, Kirk R.; Elliott, Delbert S.; Hamburg, Beatrix A. (1998). Violence in American schools: a new perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 133. ISBN 0-521-64418-6.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/192378.pdf

D.C. Ranks Well in New Gun Report - wtop.com

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/09statab/law.pdf

Some statistics suggest the firearm-related homicide rate in the USA is closer to 3.72 per 100,000. Overall though, firearm-related deaths in the US are around 11.66 per 100,000.

 

[David Spade]

Yes, the majority of firearms related deaths in the USA are due to suicides.

 

[Ethanescence]

Maybe if there wasn't such high rates of gun ownership, there might be reduced rates of suicides and other firearm-related deaths, such as accidental deaths.

 

[redmayne]

Yet another poorly concieved and factually incorrect argument my dense friend.

USA has 2.97 murders by firearm per 100.000 people. with a population of ~30000000 this equates to 8910 murders per year (in 2000) from guns. this is 24 per day.

These statistics were obtained from;
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

"
In the United States, cities tend to have higher gun crime rates but lower rates of gun ownership, compared with rural areas which tend to have lower gun crime rates but higher rates of gun ownership.[26] Some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. In 2005, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns in the United States, at 33% of all homes in the state,[27] and had a homicide rate of 1.7 of every 100,000.[28] High rates of gang membership and gang violence in urban areas have been used to explain these differences.[29]"


Your argument is once again show to be wrong.

Sources:

Williams, Kirk R.; Elliott, Delbert S.; Hamburg, Beatrix A. (1998). Violence in American schools: a new perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 133. ISBN 0-521-64418-6.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/192378.pdf

D.C. Ranks Well in New Gun Report - wtop.com

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/09statab/law.pdf

Dude, if I had the same amount of time on my hands as you, I'd go and find some statistic that supported my case as well. But I cbf.

And this is why.

Essentially, as you admitted, you like guns. So throughout this whole discussion you've just tried to defend that and argue that there should be more. But not once have you said why. Why it should be easier to own handguns and assault rifles. Why they'll benefit us. You can have your rifles of course, in rural areas, there's obviously reason for that, but there is absolutely no point for increased gun ownership and less strict restrictions.

And me, I've just argued because guns, by and large, are not a good thing. They were invented to kill, they're designed to kill, and they do. This isn't scaremongering and lies, this is the basic truth. The principal use of guns is to cause harm, and when made readily available in cities, that's what they do.

Basically, we could argue endlessly on the number of people who are killed by guns and exactly how much gun ownership increases gun violence. But they do, to whatever degree, and there is absolutely no benefit for the general population in having guns that outweighs the dangers.

 

[David Spade]

People can kill themselves if they want. It is an inherant right as a human being to be in control of your own life. In fact i would advocate that anyone be given government issue pistols if they wish to end their own life.

But thats for another thread.

Once again i draw our attention to finland, switzerland etc. Low rates of suicide. Yet every male from 20-40 has a pistol and assault rifle in their home.

 

[David Spade]

There doesnt need to be a benefit. If people want them for a purpose that will not harm anyone else, then why should they be denied this. Your harm minimisation approach could easily be extended to anything that when used incorrectly will be harmful to us (knives for example).

 

[Ethanescence]

Once again i draw our attention to finland, switzerland etc. Low rates of suicide. Yet every male from 20-40 has a pistol and assault rifle in their home.

Low rates? Finland and Switzerland are ranked 2nd and 3rd of all the advanced/developed nations for the highest rates of firearm-related suicides.

 

[redmayne]

There doesnt need to be a benefit. If people want them for a purpose that will not harm anyone else, then why should they be denied this. Your harm minimisation approach could easily be extended to anything that when used incorrectly will be harmful to us (knives for example).

This is the foolish argument that really gets to me.

A gun's primary use is harm. If a person buys one intending to use it for something else, that doesn't change its inherent purpose. Killing. Therefore it still can, so by injecting them into society you are increasing the potential for killing.

No, the same can't be said for knives.

Knives are around for practical purposes, that is the reason for their existence. Unlike guns. Knives are primarily used for cooking, camping etc.

Same with sticks, baseball bats, cars and so on. They're all tools or features that benefit our lives in various ways. Just because they can all be theoretically used to kill, they weren't designed to, unlike guns.

 

[loquasagacious]

Guns are indeed involved with people dying through murder, suicide and accidents. They are hardly however the only factor. As shown below:

Murder = shooting deaths + datbbing deaths + bludgeoning deaths + strangulation deaths + defenestration + etc etc

Suicide = people who shoot themselves + those who jump out of buildings + drown themselves + self immolate + (intentionally) drug overdose + etc etc

Fatal accidents = gun accidents + car crashes + sports fatalities + farm accidents + industrial accidents + etc etc

In comparing countries/regions it is important that we look at both the total by category and the proportion attributed to various methods. For example comparing shooting deaths between the US and UK is meaningless if in the UK they are stabbing people instead and have the same (or higher) murder rate overall.

In framing policy we should consider the total deaths in a category not changing the proportion of death types within a total.

 

[Riet]

Are you guys saying that suicidal people won't kill themselves or attempt to if they don't have guns? Are you kidding me? Fuck me I wish you had access to a firearm in that case.

 

[Raaaaaachel]

Dude, if I had the same amount of time on my hands as you, I'd go and find some statistic that supported my case as well. But I cbf.

Yeah I totally could write a post that 100% proves you wrong.......................................................if I had the time.

Hey instead of mining for evidence that supports your preconceived beliefs (which you admit you would do if you had the time), maybe you should have a look at the evidence he posted and see if it makes sense.

 

[SylviaB]

Maybe if there wasn't such high rates of gun ownership, there might be reduced rates of suicides

holy shit you're retarded

 

[Ethanescence]

holy shit you're retarded

1. You took my post out of context and missed the part where I said firearm-related deaths. I was referring to firearm-related suicides. Of course I know reducing gun ownership isn't going to have a large effect on the aggregate suicide rate. You should have quoted my entire post, it wasn't that long.

2. Try not to resort to ad hominem abuse next time.