NBVegita

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm US: 4.34 (2001 gun deaths excluding suicide) UK: .18 (2002 gun deaths excluding suicide) US: 301,139,947 population UK: 60,776,238 population There is an approximate 4.96 ratio, which I had rounded to 5 to do quick math at which point I miss calculated the UK with the same population using a linear scale would have an: .89 per 100k, thus making you 4.88 times more likely to be shot in America than the UK. Using your numbers its 5.58. And there are so many other factors to take into account. I could go through and differentiate the minorities and dozens of other factors to keep bringing these numbers closer to even. The only way you could have a statistically solid argument (by this I mean an argument that cannot be countered by manipulating statistics) would be if you found another country with an identical break down of the united states in minorities, population, poverty, health care (mental heath implied here), ect. and could then show lower murder rates with guns being banned. Until then these statistics are not black and white. There are dozens of factors you need to take into consideration when actually trying to compare this topic.

Sure we could, if we took all the money from the rich and gave it to the poor, sorry robin hood that sounds a bit communistic. Sure we're not purely capitalistic, but the further we go the socialism, the further I consider working over seas. Have I ever said that living in a dysfunctional family makes it easier to succede. I've stated that its not an excuse not to succede. For those mothers, its always a choice to have a child, unless you are raped and one pops out. If you have sex, be prepared for the consequences. Plain and simple if they were smarter with their lives they would have education. !@#$%^&* all it takes is to be 20 to have a 2 year degree. You can't even wait that long to !@#$%^&* up your life? No. I thought you would have caught the sarcasm in that when I mentioned in the very next sentence that I lost my virginity at such a young age. I'm sorry could you explain to me why I should have to help an 19 year old girl with two kids whom I've never met before, simply because she !@#$%^&*ed up her own life? So wait now you want a country with even less accountability than we currently have, where we can say "It's ok that you !@#$%^&*ed up your life, we'll take care of you, you don't have to pay the consequences because its fairer to make millions of people who haven't !@#$%^&*ed up their lives pay the consequences for your mistakes." I'm sorry but quite frankly that is not a place I want to live in.

Ok Sever here are the statistics using the method I did with Astro. US: 4.34 per 100k. (2003) UK: .18 per 100k. (2002) UK: . per 100k. (per population inflation) So at that you're about 6 times more likely to be shot and killed in America than in the UK. Also 2 other posts of mine from a different topic. Spoiler! --Click here to view-- And btw, this is an interesting article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1442617,00.html

I think I hold the record for the most times banning ice...and yet we were always friends lol

btw that 14.24 statistic was from 1994. As of 2003, which is the most recent I could find, it shows 10.3 per 100k. Out of those 10.3, 58% of them were suicides. Without suicide that number would be 4.34 per 100k. Which makes the following: A completely false statement. And don't dare blame suicide on guns. Of course there are statistics that if you own a gun you're more likely to commit suicide with a gun. !@#$%^&* that is just plain common sense.

lol And actually theoretically we would have guns in a perfect world even if for hunting purposes

Then what do you do if it turns out the gun ban doesn't help and or hurts? There is no real statistical evidence showing that gun bans would help. In fact you can manipulate the statistics either way. So why then, besides the idea that you (all) personally do not like guns, should there be a ban on guns?

If you follow those policies it won't. !@#$%^&* I had sex for the first time at 14, and you know what, I knew the risks I was taking. First off, we are not a socialistic society, just because you made mistakes doesn't mean I should pay for them. Second, dedication can lead to improvement. If you work hard, no matter how poor you are, you can get into college, even if its only community college, and then you can get a decent, if not amazing, job. I'm sick and tired of this !@#$%^&* about how you can't be motivated if you work minimum wage. !@#$%^&* just having your parents working minimum wage should be motivation enough. I'm sorry I actually enjoy not living in a socialistic society, you must not. That is also where your GDP stats really don't mean much. And yes having a lower population definately means their success is not as meaningful. I dare you to make a country where 300,000 people have a wonderful standard of life. Now I dare you to add 302,700,000 people to your country and carry the same standard of life. !@#$%^&* if you add up the population of every country on the list ahead of the U.S. they are still about 13,000,000 short of our population. I don't think you can really ask for much more than our country does considering the cir!@#$%^&*stances.

If you're too poor to support kids, don't open your !@#$%^&*ing legs. I don't feel bad for the immature and irresponsible. This does not relate to the marginal few that ended up with a bad break. Also all of scandanavia does not even consist of 25 million people. Not one of thei countries even has 10 million people in it. !@#$%^&* Iceland who is number one only has 300,000 people. Lets see what kind of standard of living they have if you multiply their population by 1010%. Per your own source our military spending growth was parallel at the end of the clinton administration as it was just after invading Iraq.

Bak what I was trying to infer was that crime rates grow exponentially when population increases. The larger number of people the more you have in poverty, the more crime you have the more mentally unstable they are. I professor I had in college had actually calculated a formula and wrote a thesis about it, but I could not for the life of me remember his last name or the formula, so instead of using an exponential formula, I used a linear formula. It was also shown in one of my previous topics, I will definately try and find it because I had great references to statistics, that the larger minority population the higher the crime rates are. Also there are 280 Metropolitan US cities vs. 27 Canadian Metropolitan areas.

I don't feel a great deal of sorrow in any of this. I'm not a very emotional person, and the way I look at it is, if someone is bothering you to an extreme on the internet, specially if it is driving you into depression, don't go where they can bother you. If someone is har!@#$%^&*ing you on myspace, then give it up. Myspace != life. I think this is a severe testament to how overly sensitive our society is. I'm not trying to be an !@#$%^&*, but what has our society come to, where a person you've never met, can make you so upset because of what they typed on the internet, as to even consider taking your own life? Is it tragic. Yes. Is that woman a terrible person, of course. Do I feel sympathy towards her family, certainly. Ultimately I believe that this should be a case study for the rest of our children. People have become too sensitive. You can't say anything to anyone in today's day and age because of the threat of someone taking offense. !@#$%^&* the concept that someone hundreds of miles away, even across the planet, can type something into the glowing box in front of them and you actually take offense to any of it, is hard to conceive. If our children are becoming too psychologically handicapped to handle the internet, we have a very serious problem on our hands, and it's called the future.

Steak. Nothing comes close to a nice juicy rare steak. And then I love spicy food, in fact I make my own chicken wing sauce. Some hot sauces will put hair on your balls, mine will take it right off. Drink - Cape Cod 4 life.

USA population: 301,139,947 Canada population: 33,390,141 So just using your statistics: USA has 330.4% more gun deaths per year than Canada (sheer volume). USA also has 901.9% more civilians than Canada does. So if you increased the canadian population to match the united states population you would have canada having 38.872 gun deaths per year. Statistically speaking we would have 117.7% less gun deaths per year than Canada. Actually you just proved that our gun laws are over 100% more effective than in Canada. Also that statement I made isn't a statistical statement, I ammend that as a belief of mine. Just keep in mind that there are a lot of things not manufactured in the United States. Gun smuggling is a hard item to get a statistic on.

I don't see where modern warfare fit into your post astro, you simply googled "US military spending". No matter how you cut the pie, military spending, including additional expenditures is a pure economical/political issue, and really, except for the fact that the spending is done on behalf of the war, has nothing to do with the warfare itself. When it comes to war in this country is relatively simple. Generals ask for money, we give them money. Simply put, there are no generals or military strategists sitting back trying to work on the military budget. Can you source that for me? Even working those jobs, if you work hard you can work your way into middle class. You may never be rich, but you can work above your initial class. But if you get into the self pity trip that the U.S. s!@#$%^&* feeds everyone, they no, you will be a loser.

Guns alone are not, but just look at the wars we've fought in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq ect, we're fighting rebels who sometimes have little more than guns. Look at the fight they put up. Through sheer force, and with those guns we could take over factories and military bases and then move from that. But aside from that the idea is that having guns would give us a CHANCE to revolt. If we had no weapons, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to revolt unless another country decided they wanted to give the U.S. citizens weapons. We also get a lot of illegal guns from other countries. And !@#$%^&* our own government sells illegal guns to other countries. As soon as you can stop drug smuggling tell me and we can stop gun smuggling. As for the crazy bit, !@#$%^&* there are a lot of things we do that could cause a lot of deaths if we decided to go crazy. imagine taking your car on a tour of the sidewalks in NYC during the middle of the day. Or !@#$%^&* get a full tank of gas and blow up your car. !@#$%^&* you can even google dozens of ways to make strong explosives with household chemicals. Or make a pipe bomb. Car bomb. Anything you want. If we didn't have guns what would be the next thing people would jump on? Do you think those columbine kids would have brought knives to school? Or would they have made some homemade bombs? I mean !@#$%^&* bombs are so easy you make that if you fill a coffee can a little over half full with fresh !@#$%^&*. Yes I said !@#$%^&*. Seal the top tight with a good fuse. The Hydrogen sulfide emitted from the feces will then create a literal !@#$%^&* bomb. The more you heat the feces the more gas you can emit. Once the fuse hits the gas it will explode sending poisonous shrapnel in all directions. Obviously to varying degrees dependent on the amount of H2S in the can. (above example is just a small insight into the simplicity of creating a bomb, although just a small bomb) These people would simply use bombs not guns.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...75-81061c3cee14 That one is working for me If not, its in this topic: http://www.ssforum.net/index.php?showtopic...50&start=50

Actually LOSA, Two posts of mine from another topic. "Since the early 1990s, crime rates have dropped in 48 of the 50 states and % of American cities. Over that same period, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canada's 10 biggest cities." "Enforcing laws against vagrancy, pros!@#$%^&*ution and drug dealing works. Yet Canada is either decriminalizing or tolerating all three. The right kinds of gun laws work too: for example, extending the sentence of any criminal who commits any crime -- down to jaywalking -- while in possession of a gun." "It is not guns from across the border that threaten Canadians. It is the weak and cynical policies of home-grown politicians, and especially the Chretien/Martin Liberals. The $2-billion wasted on the gun registry could have paid for more cops, more prisons, more of everything that would protect the lives and security of Canadians. It is the federal Liberal government that releases young offenders back into the community, the federal Liberals who appoint the judges who refuse to punish, the federal Liberals who run the prison system as if it were a summer camp, the federal Liberals who refuse to deport immigrants who break the law, the federal Liberals who have subordinated public safety to ethnic politics." Excerpts from that article.

It would have directly saved lives. If my mom had shot him, one man is dead. He was a convicted felon out on parole. In the process one woman and two children had been saved. Even discounting the life you took, you've still saved 2 lives. And if they had owned a gun, or the police had been faster, their lives would have been saved. Case and point, with no guns, at least our 3 lives would have been taken, and possibly more. Could you please post a source for that. A taser stick could easily be taken away from my 5'2" 95 pound mother, and two decades ago I don't believe they had invented taser guns. Also a taser gun doesn't intimidate an intruder into leaving, plus you have to be a lot closer than a gun to use.

Here I disagree. I don't believe all faith is in a certainty. I believe ultimately faith is a strong belief in a possibility that you believe to be strongly true. I think only in the extremes is faith a certainty.

Actually look back at most of the shootings and they're highly premeditated. Even as recent as the VT shooter, he even made videos prior to doing it, did reasearch and spent months to get the guns. Another statistic you don't see is how many lives guns save. Me for example, would not be here if not for my mom having a gun. When I was 5 a drunk man broke into the house. My dad was at work. My mom immediately ran and got her .357 magnum, and the guy was still hesitant to leave even after seeing the !@#$%^&* monster of a gun. I had called 911, as soon as he broke in, which took 45 minutes to show up. Eventually the guy made the evening news because after he left our house he broke into another house and killed the entire family with the hunting knife he had hidden in his belt. The funny thing is that we even called the news and told them our story, and aparently it wasn't good enough to make the news, even though it was a wonderful story on how a gun saved the lives a mother and her two children. And do you think we're the first or only? Guns save lives every day, but there's no coverage or statistic for that.

owning a gun, and having the right to carry concealed are two different creatures. Some states refuse to authorize you carry concealed, and even in the states that you can, it's very difficult to get, it's highly restricted and there are many areas (schools ect) that you can't carry in even with a permit.

People do theorize about god based on evidence of "miracles", events occuring with impossibly scientific bounds. And sever, a belief in a theory with little evidence is still a belief. And inversly I would say that the fact that your testing your theory means that you believe it to be true. If ben franklin didn't believe it was possible "capture" electricity, then he wouldn't have tried it. You don't throw thousands to millions into a project you don't think is true. On a simplistic level, if you theorize that you can jump 8 feet. You've never jumped 8 feet, but you have jumped 6.5 feet. So being you've been working out, you theorize that with stronger legs you can jump a longer distance. So, now that you've theorized that you can jump 8 feet, you come to a cliff exactly 8 feet wide. You will not attempt to jump the cliff unless you BELIEVE that you can jump 8 feet. Now in some instances it is possible to understand a theory and not believe it to be true. Yet as a whole, if you have a theory, you have a greater measure of belief in the fact that it is true, than that it is false. Because if you truly believed the theory you created to be more false than true, you would hypothesize a theory that you did believe was more true than false.

I know its a conspiricists theory, but one theory behind not banning guns is that if only the government is allowed to have guns, then if we attempt a revolution, we will never be able to overthrow our government. How long do you think the american revolution would have lasted without guns? I hate the idea of the only people in the country having guns being the government.

The gun laws are strick, depending on the state of course. But the problem is that when someone with no mental instability in the past, with good references and a flawless background applies for a gun, gets one, and goes nuts, how the !@#$%^&* are you supposed to prevent that? No matter how many restrictions you have, you can't prevent the crazy.