Bak Posted December 12, 2007 Report Posted December 12, 2007 in this flawed study, 37 (86%) wereDid you add in "flawed"? nonono, i was quoting from the article you posted, didn't even see that.
NBVegita Posted December 12, 2007 Report Posted December 12, 2007 sorry to burst your bubble, but guns are not enough let the PEOPLE to overrun the US government. 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. t's pretty much saying, "it's okay, you haven't gone crazy yet, since it doesn't say on your record, and you haven't been involved in criminal activity - so here, you can have the gun, i believe you're responsible." i have friends who buy guns illegally, and ALL these guns are from America. 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.
Bak Posted December 12, 2007 Report Posted December 12, 2007 in this flawed study, 37 (86%) wereDid you add in "flawed"? nonono, i was quoting from the article you posted, didn't even see that. The author was claiming that the study was flawed because it counted suicides as deaths of family members. We also get a lot of illegal guns from other countries. I don't believe you. Can you post a source for that?
Aileron Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 The kids at Columbine did bring a makeshift bomb to the school if I recall. All of Canada's guns come from other countries; they have no weapons manufacturers. The whole arguement is that if no manufacturers of weapons existed, demand would suddenly go away, based on the logic that if you hold a dog's tail still, the tail will wag the dog. It started with cities who wanted to ban weapons. They do so, and it does nothing. To save face, they claim that the reason it failed was because guns were being imported from the state or province around the city, so then the province bans guns. It still doesn't work, and to save face they claim that the reason it failed was because guns were being imported from other provinces, so then they get the whole nation to ban guns. It still didn't work, and now the claim is that it is because guns are being imported from other countries. Look, there has been a demand for weapons since the dawn of time, and that demand will continue to exist until judgement day. Hate it if you want. Point out that said demand will interfere with your dreams of a utopian society, but note that the demand won't go away. The fiasco with prohibition, and the current problems with the War on Drugs should illustrate this. If the demand exists, the supply will find a way to meet it. Every civilized country in the world bans illegal drugs, but does that mean that no marijuanna farms exist? No! Suppliers found a way to operate, grow their crops, and smuggle them in to civilized countries. I didn't mention the mall shooting yet. Look, we all know that while tragic, in the grand scheme of things it is insignificant to the number of muggings, robberies, rapes, and murders that occur on a routine basis. Heck, the total of all coalition casualties from the War on Terror have been less than deaths caused by routine crime. Still, I say the problem here is that there was a lot of people in the same place without proper security protection. In my humble opinion, there should be two guns in the hands of security officers for every one AED on the premises, for any building with a large number of people in it. Training as to how to use the gun isn't as important as people make it out to be - If you matched a civilian off the street with no combat training, and gave him a semi-automatic handgun, and matched him up against an unarmed Navy Seal in an open and well lit area with no cover, the civilian would win.
Bak Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 wait, so are you saying that canada's gun policy isn't working? Gun deaths per 100,000 people: United States 14.24 Canada 4.31
NBVegita Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 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.
Drake7707 Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 guns are forbidden here unless you have a legal hunting license
Bak Posted December 15, 2007 Report Posted December 15, 2007 nbvegita, I don't think you don't understand that deaths per 100,000 people already take population differences into account (hence the per 100,000 people part)? If you want sheer numbers it's (!@#$%^&*uming your population numbers are right):canada 1,439 usa 42,882
Dav Posted December 15, 2007 Author Report Posted December 15, 2007 thank you Losa for that information. You have to remember that someone with a mental problem that can lead to an impulse act of killing may not have a criminal record making it easier for them to get a gun. History has shown us that everyone cannot be trusted to own a gun. It is also evedant that with guns easier to acquire, those who should not have one can get a gun more easily. People seem to see guns as a defence item or for personal safety. the whole "I need a gun because they have guns" thing comes into play and the spiral begins. If you take guns away this cycle is broken and a vast minority have guns meaning people become safer not more at risk.
NBVegita Posted December 15, 2007 Report Posted December 15, 2007 Bak what I was trying to infer was that crime rates grow exponentially when population increases. The larger number of people the more you have in poverty, the more crime you have the more mentally unstable they are. I professor I had in college had actually calculated a formula and wrote a thesis about it, but I could not for the life of me remember his last name or the formula, so instead of using an exponential formula, I used a linear formula. It was also shown in one of my previous topics, I will definately try and find it because I had great references to statistics, that the larger minority population the higher the crime rates are. Also there are 280 Metropolitan US cities vs. 27 Canadian Metropolitan areas.
Bak Posted December 15, 2007 Report Posted December 15, 2007 that's a linear relationship nbvegita, ten times as many metropolitan areas with ten times the population.
darkhosis Posted December 20, 2007 Report Posted December 20, 2007 I just wish someone in the mall had had their own gun with them (legally, by the 2nd amendment) and killed the guy.agreed! as for the people saying !@#$%^&* about how murders are higher in USA cause of guns.. well, maybe so, but if you look closer at the #'s you'll see something else... look at the states with highest per capita gun ownership.. nebraska is #1 in per capita gun ownership.. yes, there was that recent mall shooting there, but if you look at their overall crime rate, for 2006 it's 2.8 murders per 100,000 people (this includes non-gun related murders as well)... the US average is 4.2.. other states with higher than avg per capita gun ownership? north dakota, south dakota, utah, idaho, montana, etc. basically a bunch of midwest states. North Dakota is the lowest at 1.1 murders per 100,000 people (and is also top 5 in gun ownership).. that's 40% lower than Canada's. basically, states with more homogenous populations (be it by race, religion, tribal lines, whatever) have less instance of violent crime/murders. it is also true of nations around the globe.
SeVeR Posted December 20, 2007 Report Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) 1. You're insinuating that gun-control laws are causing those high murder rates. What you fail to realise is those major industrialised areas had high murder rates before the gun-control laws were put in place. In fact, that's why the laws were put in place. They already were murder fests, and for all we know the gun-control laws have lowered the rates of murder from what they were. With your stats, we'll never know, but i'm guessing that possibility skipped your mind. I imagine the website you read it from didn't want you to know either. 2. Gun-control laws don't work in individual states, all you do is take guns out of the hands of people who may have used the gun to defend themselves. You can drive through a state-border without going through a metal detector; You can't go through an airport in the same way. A country wide-ban is needed to see if gun-control really works in the USA. Edited December 20, 2007 by SeVeR
NBVegita Posted December 21, 2007 Report Posted December 21, 2007 A country wide-ban is needed to see if gun-control really works in the USA. 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?
Bak Posted December 21, 2007 Report Posted December 21, 2007 in a perfect world we wouldn't have guns... since we want to move towards a perfect world at some point we need to get rid of guns.
NBVegita Posted December 21, 2007 Report Posted December 21, 2007 in a perfect world we wouldn't have guns... since we want to move towards a perfect world at some point we need to get rid of guns. lol And actually theoretically we would have guns in a perfect world even if for hunting purposes
SeVeR Posted December 21, 2007 Report Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) Then what do you do if it turns out the gun ban doesn't help and or hurts? I don't know. I was refuting the notion that gun-control can be seen to work or not work based on enforcement within a single state, which may be surrounded by gun-legal states on all sides. It obviously requires stricter border security. It remains to be seen whether a national ban will work. In the UK i'm happy to say that i've never seen a gun in my life. There is no real statistical evidence showing that gun bans would help. In fact you can manipulate the statistics either way. If there weren't so many guns in the USA then maybe there wouldn't be a firearm homicide rate that is 27 times higher than that in the UK, just a thought. -EDIT- And just incase you don't understand, this accounts for population size as it is per 100,000 people. In other words you're 27 times more likely to be shot to death in America. Edited December 21, 2007 by SeVeR
ThunderJam Posted December 21, 2007 Report Posted December 21, 2007 Not having guns at all, as in not being made, not existing won't work. Even though I think it is plausible to suggest that wars will be fought in the future without personal weapons such as guns (the whole concept of war will probably change as biological stuff progresses and the world becomes more interdependent on the internet). Either way, law enforcement will surely need firearms, or non-lethal projectiles. In some form, to some extent, they are going to have to exist.
NBVegita Posted December 21, 2007 Report Posted December 21, 2007 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: -EDIT- And just incase you don't understand, this accounts for population size as it is per 100,000 people. In other words you're 27 times more likely to be shot to death in America. 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.
Bak Posted December 22, 2007 Report Posted December 22, 2007 A completely false statement. how is it completely false?
SeVeR Posted December 22, 2007 Report Posted December 22, 2007 I wasn't talking about suicides, i was talking about firearm homicide rate...
darkhosis Posted December 22, 2007 Report Posted December 22, 2007 -EDIT- And just incase you don't understand, this accounts for population size as it is per 100,000 people. In other words you're 27 times more likely to be shot to death in America. A completely false statement.he's probably getting it from nationmaster... and if nationmaster is correct, then that's fairly accurate statement... but guns dont cause murders, ppl do... and, once again, if you look at states with the highest per capita gun ownership, they are all generally in the midwest and also have the lowest murder rates in the entire USA (some are lower than UK)... they have a more homogenized population... you know, or well, i could just say there are less black people over yonder as the case is here... in places like zambia, zimbabwe ("Rhodesia" RIP Ian Smith, the last true African Patriot, heil!), rwanda, etc... it's more along tribal lines.. then you get the whole religion thing going on in places like lebanon, ex-yugoslavia, nigeria, etc, etc, etc.
Recommended Posts