Gun laws could have prevented this? Fuck you. (2920 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.15 on 217 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by BeaverDamn (View user info) at 2007-04-17 11:34:17 EDT
Anyone who thinks gun laws could have prevented this is dead wrong.
If you make stricter gun laws, these psychos will find a way to obtain them.
"I need to take a course? Ok, I'll take a course and get licensed, and then I'll blow everyone to smithereens."
Banning guns is possibly the worst thing you can do. If you think everyone will turn in their guns, and we'll all live in perfect harmony, then you are as naieve as a 3rd grader.
When no one has guns but the criminals, guess whose house is getting robbed? That's right, yours.
And when the police are the only ones to defend you, you're fucked.
On England's gun ban, only .1% of the population owned a gun to before the ban.
"Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06."
That's a direct quote from wikipedia.
Here's the solution:
How about parents take some responsibility and quit fucking these kids up. Normal kids don't blow the shit out of everyone in their sights. Give em some love, or give em some meds. Just keep them the fuck away from me.
User Reviews
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-24 10:26:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
arabic food is teh awesome! it's good after a workout. their music's nice too. can't say i'm much of a fan of the rest, though i'm not sure i give a shit.
speaking of surrender monkeys, you must be happy that Mr. Sarkozy is about to get elected. you will have a pro-american Bush-admiring muslim-stomping ally at your side.
those are rare nowadays.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-24 10:17:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-24 09:50:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
people don't bite on my comments anymore :-(
------------------------
Only when you say you like arabic food you terrorist loving, freedom hating, jihadi supporting surrender monkey.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-24 09:50:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
people don't bite on my comments anymore :-(
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-24 07:59:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-20 16:11:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i like many of your arguments indo but your "Uh-merica Fuck Yeah!" theater is ridiculous.
i agree the gun control issue is not an easily solved one but your arguments are absurd. "THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG!" lol, nice one, nietzche. let's gas jews then! even conservative on this very website call you over the top. get a clue.
do you enjoy status quo so much? do you ever ask yourself "Mmmm, perhaps we could change this or at least look into it?" or are you too in love with the image of your country that you will still think it's paradise even if it was a nuclear wasteland?
i like how you are SO quick to defend your government's choice as acts of God but willing to blast every other country on the planet for decisions they take.
i once mentionned illegal economic sanctions imposed on Canada by the US and your response was "THEY HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU LET THEM HAPPEN! THEY WOULDN'T IF YOU FOUGHT BACK!" haha, ok. i guess all those people on 9/11 are guilty of their death.
or i remember once i just said i enjoyed arab music and like some of their food. it was a totally harmelss discussion and you went fucking BERSERK. it was fucking pathetic and we all had a good laugh on gabbly.
i never didn't want to be the one to tell you this dude, but you are viewed as not really different from ETS.
-----------------------------
Are you trying to tell me there is a clear right or wrong when it comes to guns?
For the record I don't own a gun, I am for stricter gun laws and harsher penalties for breaking guin laws, I think we should eliminate gun show loopholes, and I have no problems with waiting periods.
I don't like all out bans (on hand guns, semi-auto's should be illegal). I think law abiding citizens with clean records should be able to have concealed carry permits.
I agree that anyone who cares more about gun bans than alcohol bans is fucked up, but the two are comprable.
I went beserk because you said you liked arabic music? I consider beserk using your real info to mess with you in real life, sending offensive mail, tracking down your company and hasseling you (or your boss) at work. If I made fun of you or went on an internet tirade it probably had a lot more to do with my workload that day than with going "beserk".
Not different than ETS? When is the last time I claimed to have the truth, and threatened those who did not agree? I realize that most people on this site probably don't have the same opiniopns as me, and I am comfortable with that. I come here because I am bored not to educate "sheeple". If people really think of me as ETS I hope they get as big a kick out of me as I get out of him (I will try and foam at the mouth a little more).
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-24 07:37:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-22 02:23:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't get it Indoninja. How do they contradict each other?
-------------------
Fuck me.
They don't, I was reading that sentence wrong.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-23 09:45:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/100809#2388765
great reply phauna. but indoninja will probably pull you some statistic about drunk driving accidents and make a correlation where there is none.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-23 09:31:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-04-23 04:24:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have had an idea.
What if gangster rappers could attack gun crime amongst youths by saying that real men weild knives and that shooting someone to death is like 'fucking with a rubber on'?
-----------
This is a good idea if only to determine the extent to which youth derives it's culture from its music. Kris Kross had all the BUY wearinging their pants backwards, maybe rapping about knives over guns will work.
Submitted by mynameisandy (user info) at 2007-04-23 07:00:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
OK, so banning guns wont stop psychos going on a killing spree, but at least it'd make it harder for the scummy, one time, street dispute, "Pop a cap in yo' ass" people getting hold of them so readily.
Or maybe we should just ban being black.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2007-04-23 06:43:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for using Wikipedia as a source.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-04-23 04:24:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have had an idea.
What if gangster rappers could attack gun crime amongst youths by saying that real men weild knives and that shooting someone to death is like 'fucking with a rubber on'?
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-22 02:23:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't get it Indoninja. How do they contradict each other?
-------------
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-20 13:35:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And the two articles completely contradicted each other.
"Before the introduction of the law, the overall number of homicides not related to guns had increased 1% a year. After the law took effect, this number fell by almost 2.5% a year.
And the total numbers of suicides fell by 4% after having risen annually by 2% before the introduction of the gun laws." - physorg
"The report also found the rate of gun homicides fell from an annual average of 93 in the 18 years before 1996 to an annual average of 56." (also the chart in this article is exactly opposite of what the previous article said) SMH article.
-------------
The quotes you made don't contradict each other, in fact they are about totally different things. The physorg ones are about 'non' gun related deaths. These are quoted to show that "There was no evidence that the use of other methods to commit suicide or homicide increased."
-----------------
If you don't like the palatable paraphrasing of these news articles, how about the source? Of course you have to pay for the full thing, but the abstract sums it up nicely:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/365
""Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.
Conclusions: Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides. ""
----------------
Here is the abstract about the study which found no link, although this abstract is less useful than the last one. Again, you must pay to see the whole thing, feel free:
http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1
----------------
Let me just finish with the most pertinent quote of a figure from the the first study; a figure which cannot be denied or quibbled over, and no amount of statistical trickery can distort it.
|
|
|
|
"In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards."
Submitted by Abbey (user info) at 2007-04-21 06:59:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If you think a parent 'loving your child more' will save a mentally ill person...you're an idiot, and you don't know anything about mental illness. That's like saying if you loved your mother more, she wouldn't have had breast cancer and died.
Our society (not just American) failed miserably at helping this guy. So many signs...so many weak attempts at dotting the i's and crossing the t's, but nothing really ever happened. For people that are mentally ill to this depth, short term treatment is a joke. A few people stepped up to the plate, but most of them just watched this supposed psycho plow through life hugely disturbed.
We have very strange mental health laws in this country. At 14, a child can check themselves out of a crisis unit. The days of forcibly committing a person are over. THEIR rights override what the rest of us think is necessary. So, a well-meaning parent can force for 24 hours what they think is god damn necessary for their child...concurred with by physicians...and the kid can simply say no and go home and continue to be mentally ill, or kill 32 people.
I speak from experience on this issue. Not going to go into details at this point (someone suggested I do so...am working on it), but I raised 4 kids, one who is very mentally ill. I worry daily about shit like this. The other three kids are 'normal.' We did nothing different for him. We tried every possible mental health help but were continually denied after he turned 14, and we started at 6...saw the signs that early.
Would loving him more helped? Heck...I don't know how I couldn't have loved him less. He got 10X what the other kids had because he was so disabled, and continues to be to this date. The problem is when they get to be adulthood and you have no legal control over what they do. For the safety of my family, we have no contact. (Again...long story.)
Very long story short, think before you place blame. It wasn't guns, it could have/maybe not parents, but most likely a young man that didn't get the medical attention he needed for years.
Just my 2 cents.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2007-04-21 00:53:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:38:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We're not allowed guns in the UK, and our kids rarely get shot. Go figure."
---------------
murder rate in UK .014063 per 1000
in US .042802 per 1000
That means your chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem.
I value my right to own a gun more than I worry about that .000028%, and that is pretending it is a perfect world where a gun ban actually could get guns off the street (it can't, look at DC and NYC)
-----------------------------------
Fifth, what the fuck indoninja?!
0.042802/0.014063 = 3.04. Therefore the chance of getting murdered in the U.S. is three times greater than in England.
Dipshit.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2007-04-21 00:49:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
First of all, that is not "more than doubled" you idiot.
Second, it is not the fact that you have such shitty gun laws. It is the combination of that and the unbelievably low IQ of the American government/population that causes problems.
Third, I am drunk right now.
Fourth, may your entire nation burn to the ground and may the Cubans piss on the fire to put it out.
Ass-licking unilaterlist fuckholes.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-20 16:18:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
(that should start him for the rest of the week-end)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-20 16:11:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i like many of your arguments indo but your "Uh-merica Fuck Yeah!" theater is ridiculous.
i agree the gun control issue is not an easily solved one but your arguments are absurd. "THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG!" lol, nice one, nietzche. let's gas jews then! even conservative on this very website call you over the top. get a clue.
do you enjoy status quo so much? do you ever ask yourself "Mmmm, perhaps we could change this or at least look into it?" or are you too in love with the image of your country that you will still think it's paradise even if it was a nuclear wasteland?
i like how you are SO quick to defend your government's choice as acts of God but willing to blast every other country on the planet for decisions they take.
i once mentionned illegal economic sanctions imposed on Canada by the US and your response was "THEY HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU LET THEM HAPPEN! THEY WOULDN'T IF YOU FOUGHT BACK!" haha, ok. i guess all those people on 9/11 are guilty of their death.
or i remember once i just said i enjoyed arab music and like some of their food. it was a totally harmelss discussion and you went fucking BERSERK. it was fucking pathetic and we all had a good laugh on gabbly.
i never didn't want to be the one to tell you this dude, but you are viewed as not really different from ETS.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-20 15:56:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and yes, the shitty article on which you've been relying for the last 200 replies was owned.
it was obviously written by an idiot à la O'Reilly (your idol) who couldn't even figure out that the liberal party of Australia was right-wing...it's the same thing in my province.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-20 15:53:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It comes down to what you value"""
if you value guns over alchool, not only are you fucking retarded, but you have a small penis.
i like hunting, i like guns. but i don't see the POINT in having a handgun or an auto. if you're such a pussy that you need a firearm in your house, buy a shotgun or a hunting rifle and enforce a minimal barrel lenght to make weapons HARDER TO CONCEAL and just ban autos. do you really need more to protect a home? if you're so paranoid that you need a Glock under your pillow, don't even bother risking your life driving.
handguns and automatics should be illegal so that only the scum use it to shoot each others (<- a good thing). now the main argument of gun nuts is "WHAT IF A NIGGAH PULLS A GUN ON ME IN THE STREET!?!?" 1st. wtf are you doing in that neighborhood? 2nd. even if you have a gun on you, you're not fucking Clint Eastwood so how are you gonna pull it out without getting shot and most importantly 3rd. how is an auto gonna save your life more? and most importantly 4th. the number of innocents that die because of the availability of easily concealable and/or automatic weapons vastly outnumber your little drama queen scenario.
now you're gonna tell me "BUT THE MANY % OF THE SWISS HAVE AUTOMATIC RIFLES AND HAVE CLOSE TO NO HOMICIDE!" yes, but you're talking about tiny homogenous population with close to no unemployement as well, not a country of 300 mil infested with niggers, economic disparity and illiteracy. within those parameters, it's only logic to make useless dangerous weapons unavailable and tighten control over the more reasonable ones.
in short, if there was a reasone to having pistols and automatics i would respect your 'values' but seeing that there is none other than comfort pussies like you, wtf is the point?
that was very long, i know.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-04-20 15:18:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/100809#2386211
Although I do not agree with gun control, this rebut against it used really misleading stats. They took the percentage difference between The United States and Britain, which his small, without looking at the relative difference. Although is difference is only 0.000000whatever percent, because BOTH figures are so low, that also means they have 300% more murders in comparison to Britain.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-20 13:45:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:31:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
besides, the US is the only nation that has more gun related violence than some third world countries and it leads rich countries by far.
unequal wealth distribution + easy access to guns = bad
gun nuts can argue that as much as they want, the stastics are still there against you.
-------------------
Wasn't owned (my article could be wrong), just have to work sometimes.
Sorry Caul, but the stats aren't there. Murder with guns may go down with gun bans (in th eUS with all the guns we have now it would be a nightmare to do it overnight, maybe it would be ok after decades of increasingly tough gun laws) but other crimes definately goes up.
But lets pretend for a moment that a gun ban would stop deaths. So what. Banning alcohol would get rid of all the drunk driving and other alcohol related deaths (drunk driving alone is greater than gun murder, I think)? Why don't we do that? It comes down to what you value. It comes down to you wanting the govt to decide what is safe for you. There is no right or wrong, but if you believe that alcohol should be allowed you have to be able to understand and appreciate the argument for allowing guns.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-20 13:35:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:07:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Indo, you have one article, with no sources written by an American (gun nut, just read it and hear the subtext), 6 years ago, talking about a two year period.
I have two articles based on three reports, with sources by Australians, written last year, talking about a 28 year period.
You asked for some longer term studies, well here are some.
Also, lots of guns are still legal, especially for farmers, things like shotguns and rifles. We tend to ban only handguns in a 'draconian' manner, sorry we also banned the "pretty" guns also. What kind of serious article talks about how pretty a gun is, and why it shouldn't be banned? But officer, it's too pretty, it wouldn't hurt a fly.
I love the language in your article. Some quotes
------------------------------------------------------------
And the two articles completely contradicted each other.
"Before the introduction of the law, the overall number of homicides not related to guns had increased 1% a year. After the law took effect, this number fell by almost 2.5% a year.
And the total numbers of suicides fell by 4% after having risen annually by 2% before the introduction of the gun laws." - physorg
"The report also found the rate of gun homicides fell from an annual average of 93 in the 18 years before 1996 to an annual average of 56." (also the chart in this article is exactly opposite of what the previous article said) SMH article.
The article I quoted was pro-gun, and could be wrong, but there is so,ething wrong with your sources when they say complletely different things.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2007-04-20 06:28:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I concur.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-04-20 00:55:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ripple (user info) at 2007-04-20 14:37:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck you all. if gun laws mean that ONE PERSON couldnt have killed ONE OTHER, it has been a success in that one less family will mourn.
----------------------
net or gross?
Submitted by ripple (user info) at 2007-04-20 00:37:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck you all. if gun laws mean that ONE PERSON couldnt have killed ONE OTHER, it has been a success in that one less family will mourn.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:58:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"I have little confidence in the US legislating a better ban."
Good point, probably best in the case of the usa to just toughen up the restrictions/controls and get rid of the loopholes.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:52:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:20:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
indoninja has just been owned but he won't admit it.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:31:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
besides, the US is the only nation that has more gun related violence than some third world countries and it leads rich countries by far.
unequal wealth distribution + easy access to guns = bad
gun nuts can argue that as much as they want, the stastics are still there against you.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:24:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_and_crime#Australia
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:20:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
indoninja has just been owned but he won't admit it.
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:07:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:59:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:15:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-----------------------------
The two articles you quoted conradicted each other.
The first shows a steady decline in gun deaths before and after the ban (and two different studies had different opinions on the effect the gun ban had on it).
The second said that gun death had been on the rise before the ban and quotes no sources.
Anyway beside having a negligable effect on deaths per year and costing over 500 million dollars (just to buy back guns, not counting admin costs for such a program), what about the effect on other crime inAustralia?
"Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery - until the ban."
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/26/12629
--------------------
Indo, you have one article, with no sources written by an American (gun nut, just read it and hear the subtext), 6 years ago, talking about a two year period.
I have two articles based on three reports, with sources by Australians, written last year, talking about a 28 year period.
You asked for some longer term studies, well here are some.
Also, lots of guns are still legal, especially for farmers, things like shotguns and rifles. We tend to ban only handguns in a 'draconian' manner, sorry we also banned the "pretty" guns also. What kind of serious article talks about how pretty a gun is, and why it shouldn't be banned? But officer, it's too pretty, it wouldn't hurt a fly.
I love the language in your article. Some quotes:
"adopted draconian gun control laws banning certain guns " (draconian, but limited)
"Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment because the fate of the nation was determined by a handful of statist socialists who find individual freedom abhorrent" (we also felt large massacres of people abhorrent)
"stringent gun control at the expense of freedom" (not an issue, we don't have some constitutional loophole which says we must carry bazookas)
"They outlawed every semi-auto, even those pretty duck guns" (again, sorry)
"Australia remained a subject of Great British until 1986, when the last ties with the British crown were dissolved." (except for the queen still being our head of state)
"With only 19 million people" (way over, more like 21 million)
"hunting has become prohibitively difficult for all but a handful of Australians with private lands and the usual connections." (lack of big game, except for pigs, makes sport hunting prohibitive. Most guns are used by farmers to kill rabbits which are the biggest pests, and sometimes cull kangaroos)
"the leftist Australian government has responded by passing more laws; in 1998 Bowie knives and other knives and items including handcuffs were banned." (this government may be labelled the "Liberal" party but, confusingly for outsiders, this party is actually the right wing party. Both major parties actually agree on gun control. In fact the prime minister, a right winger, describes gun proliferation as the 'American disease'.)
"Like Americans, Australians loved and possessed firearms - that is, until the ban." (before and after the ban everyone except a few farmers felt exactly the same. Handguns had been banned all along, this ban was only a crack down on semi and auto rifles. There is a general revulsion of guns by most people.)
"Freedom has been extinguished. A way of life has ended." (this article is an opinion piece, not a good article to use.)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 13:27:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think you read too many books.
Mafia and organized crime don't shun guns because of societal norms, but because it draws more attention to their business."""
no shit. it's the same thing. in a society with few guns, even more reason to avoid using them to keep a low profile.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 12:55:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 10:52:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
he's not entirely wrong. petty criminals and street gangs my resort to guns but more 'classy' criminals, like organized crime, tend to shun guns. sure they'll use guns on each others (who cares) but the killing of innocent people (more likely to happen with guns) is frowned upon. i know it is in the mafia. i remember that during the biker war, those who injured or killed innocent bystanders were eliminated by their own.
not every criminal is a ruthless barbarian that is willing to shoot in the face.
------------------------------
I think you read too many books.
Mafia and organized crime don't shun guns because of societal norms, but because it draws more attention to their business.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-04-19 12:42:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
murder rate in UK .014063 per 1000
in US .042802 per 1000
That means your chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem.
--------------------
Most bizarre use of statistics ever.
Submitted by nitty34 (user info) at 2007-04-19 12:00:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Didn't read the shitstorm of comments.
Barely read the post.
But the title alone warrents a +2.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 10:52:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
he's not entirely wrong. petty criminals and street gangs my resort to guns but more 'classy' criminals, like organized crime, tend to shun guns. sure they'll use guns on each others (who cares) but the killing of innocent people (more likely to happen with guns) is frowned upon. i know it is in the mafia. i remember that during the biker war, those who injured or killed innocent bystanders were eliminated by their own.
not every criminal is a ruthless barbarian that is willing to shoot in the face.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 10:10:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:15:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
In a gun ban culture, even criminals are loathe to use guns because it is so frowned upon by everyone.
--------------------
hahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Yeah if only guns were frowned upon more criminals would throw them away.
I know, why don't we decide to "frown upon" rape, murder, and stealing so all the criminals stop. All this time I thought we needed real penalties and fear of incarceration(or fear of being killed) to keep people with no morals in line. All that money wasted on police, jails, and courts when all along all we needed to do was "frown upon" crime and it would go away.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:59:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:15:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-----------------------------
The two articles you quoted conradicted each other.
The first shows a steady decline in gun deaths before and after the ban (and two different studies had different opinions on the effect the gun ban had on it).
The second said that gun death had been on the rise before the ban and quotes no sources.
Anyway beside having a negligable effect on deaths per year and costing over 500 million dollars (just to buy back guns, not counting admin costs for such a program), what about the effect on other crime inAustralia?
"Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery - until the ban."
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/26/12629
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:37:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:14:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 08:43:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they should teach children to charge school shooters with their bagpacks in front of them. we have drills for fire, nuclear bombs...etc, why not assault attention seeking schizo idiots with guns?
------------
There is a school in the Us where the principle taught the students that if an armed intruder entered the class they should throw books, papers and charge him. I think he lost his job, and while it may not be the best plan in all cases if a mob in one of the classes did bumrush this guy he wouldn't have killed as many people (not saying that is what I would have done, I probably would have been first out the window, this i just food for thought).
===
i'm sure the shooter would also be quite suprised to see the 'helpless little humans' charge him back. he wouldn't have time to reload and shooting a rushing mob is harder than shooting someone crouching under a table.
i'm not saying i would do this either, but remember that soldiers always say their training kicks in when they are in a dangerous situation. perhaps if we taught kids at an early age to charge those morons, enough of them would have the self-preserving instinctive reaction to fight back instead of hiding (and dying). it might also be a deterrent for kids growing up with the fantasy of killing their schoolmates.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:30:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by pobz (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:18:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Never mind the parents, stop bully the weird kids at school cos these are the ones that now come back and shoot you!
Next time you point and laugh at an emo in the corridor remember he may come back to get you!
===
he wasn't bullied and by other students account, they did try to integrate him.
besides, everyone is bullied at one point or another. whether you're a popular kid or a marginal, someone will eventually take a giant shit on you. being bullied doesn't justify shooting people you short-sighted moron.
Submitted by pobz (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:18:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Never mind the parents, stop bully the weird kids at school cos these are the ones that now come back and shoot you!
Next time you point and laugh at an emo in the corridor remember he may come back to get you!
Submitted by spyder882001 (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:17:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
in columbus ohio you can buy pistols for like 15 bucks on the street. seriously ppl will walk up 2 ur can and be like "hey bro wanna buy a gun" gun laws are futile
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:15:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
First an old review that sums up some facts:
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-01-03 18:44:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Good points, there is a spectrum, not only two polar opposites.
Anyway, here is a news item about a recent report done in Australia after the gun buyback scheme. This shows a marked decrease in gun suicides and gun homicides:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html
The gist is "492 firearm suicides a year" before buyback and "that figure dropped to 247 in the seven years for which reliable figures are available".
And "the rate of gun homicides fell from an annual average of 93 in the 18 years before 1996 to an annual average of 56."
There is a bit at the end about a different study which had findings which said the buyback made no difference at all as rates were already falling.
"""Both found that the rate of gun suicide declined faster after the gun buyback and neither found any significant difference in the rate of decline in gun homicide before and after the gun buyback," he said.""" (Another snippet)
---------------------------------------
Another news item, same report:
http://www.physorg.com/news85298565.html
""total numbers of suicides fell by 4% after having risen annually by 2% before the introduction of the gun laws.""
""Before the introduction of the law, the overall number of homicides not related to guns had increased 1% a year. After the law took effect, this number fell by almost 2.5% a year.""
""The fall in the number of deaths associated with the use of firearms, including suicides, rapidly accelerated after the law took effect. The decline was at least twice as high (6%) as it had been before the reforms were introduced.""
""The study shows that in the 18 years before the legislation was passed, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, in which 112 people died and 52 were wounded. There have been no mass shootings since the law came into force."" (<-- which happened ten years ago.)
***************************************
Now, some things I've newly thought up. If this kid wanted to kill people, that's pretty normal, but he had access to guns. Worse though is the "gun culture" which you all know about if you are American. Guns are glorified, looked on as totally normal or even a must have. People congratulate each other on being a 'reponsible citizen' (a gun toting prick). Guns are thought of as the embodiment of freedom, of machismo, of power and many other things. Most of you are bantering on about how great guns are, how they can solve all problems, how many you have, what kind, how the government is kept in place totally by an armed populace. You know, normal talk for civilized folk.
Well, that is all a crock of complete shit. Many countries still have accountable governments without an armed populace. America has, in fact, a quite shitty government and guns didn't prevent that happening. Where was the uprising against Bush's vote rigging? Where were the armed citizens responsibly demanding a recount and some accountability?
People in America have no revulsion of guns. The opposite if anything. Your logic of more guns, scared criminals goes both ways. Less guns equals less scared criminals, means less criminals needing guns. In a gun ban culture, even criminals are loathe to use guns because it is so frowned upon by everyone.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:14:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 08:43:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they should teach children to charge school shooters with their bagpacks in front of them. we have drills for fire, nuclear bombs...etc, why not assault attention seeking schizo idiots with guns?
------------
There is a school in the Us where the principle taught the students that if an armed intruder entered the class they should throw books, papers and charge him. I think he lost his job, and while it may not be the best plan in all cases if a mob in one of the classes did bumrush this guy he wouldn't have killed as many people (not saying that is what I would have done, I probably would have been first out the window, this i just food for thought).
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 08:43:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they should teach children to charge school shooters with their bagpacks in front of them. we have drills for fire, nuclear bombs...etc, why not assault attention seeking schizo idiots with guns?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 07:18:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:32:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"It is a question of resources. If guns were made illegal tomorrow you would have a lot more criminals. A lot of people wouldn't just turn in their guns. And since we have millions of gun owners in the US who aren't tracked we would have millions of guns ready to be sold on the black market, or hoarded from the cops who whould have to waste time tracking them down."
Absolutely, of course there would still be many many existing guns out there, but it would be a lot harder for someone who wanted a gun to get one....and the existing guns would be gradually tracked down.
That sounds mad.....and it is......the problem is that the handgun ban was very very poorly legislated, it banned handguns, but not objects that are essentially handguns in waiting.......it is extremely easy to convert certain bb guns into a working handgun, and such guns-to-be are available for anyone to walk in and buy in any city centre. I could go and buy 50 of them tomorrow, and convert them myself after a bit of internet research.
-------------------------------
I am very worried about the interim crime rate while the cops are tracking the guns down. I am also worried about the skyrocketing assaults, rape and robberies that have gone hand in hand with every weapons ban (NZ, Australia, and UK). I would rather the US continue its current approach in criem reduction which has been more successful at reducing crime over the last 15 years than any country that has tried to ban weapons.
I have little confidence in the US legislating a better ban. I am all for waiting periods, background checks to get guns, and stiffer penaltied for people with illegal weapons (we also have som crazy rules about gun shows where you can basically buy anything with no background check). I know this wouldn't stop VT type scenarios, but I think it is silly to legislate based on the exceptions and headline making tragedies. I would rather lawmakers focus on the much more common "day to day murders" (for lack of a better phrase).
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-04-18 23:31:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Way I figure, you the more you Yanks fight gun laws, the more of you get killed as a consequnce.
Goodness reigns.
Submitted by BeaverDamn (user info) at 2007-04-18 22:40:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 21:16:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ticklish_squirrel (user info) at 2007-04-18 19:21:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, I kinda see where you're coming from. Psychos will still find guns, even after the rest of civilization has laid theirs to rest.
If EVERYONE had a gun, then that stupid fuck would've had his brains smeared on the chalkboard by 32 other gun-toters before he managed to pull his own fricken trigger.
----------
if everyone had a gun, he would be going in with grenades..
----------
Where the hell would you get grenades from?
But I guess it doesn't matter though because he could just plant some plastic explosives.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 21:16:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ticklish_squirrel (user info) at 2007-04-18 19:21:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, I kinda see where you're coming from. Psychos will still find guns, even after the rest of civilization has laid theirs to rest.
If EVERYONE had a gun, then that stupid fuck would've had his brains smeared on the chalkboard by 32 other gun-toters before he managed to pull his own fricken trigger.
----------
if everyone had a gun, he would be going in with grenades..
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-04-18 20:59:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"[S]cholars point to a dramatic effect on firearm deaths in Australia as a result of the post-Port Arthur massacre gun restriction and buyback. A peer-reviewed article by scholars at Monash University, looked at mortality statistics and firearm deaths over three periods of regulatory reform and found that "dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform."
Other studies have supported the conclusion of a reduction in firearm crimes as a result of regulation."
And THAT, my friend, is a direct quote from wikipedia.
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-04-18 20:56:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
+1 for this:
"That's a direct quote from wikipedia."
Nice research skills, Doctor.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-04-18 20:19:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ubersite gets that nice mix of posts containing obscenity-filled bad jokes, and long philosophical debates about controversial issues such as gun control.
Submitted by ticklish_squirrel (user info) at 2007-04-18 19:21:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, I kinda see where you're coming from. Psychos will still find guns, even after the rest of civilization has laid theirs to rest.
If EVERYONE had a gun, then that stupid fuck would've had his brains smeared on the chalkboard by 32 other gun-toters before he managed to pull his own fricken trigger.
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2007-04-18 18:53:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"That's a direct quote from wikipedia. "
ahahahahahaahahahahah
hahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HA
HA
HA
Nice source...
Submitted by dangerdude (user info) at 2007-04-18 17:24:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:15:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:01:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind. """
let's all have nuclear weapons then!
-------
No, let's not. That thought is just foolish. No one will stop you on the sidewalk and demand your property or person under threat of a nuclear weapon. No person will respond to such an attack by setting off a nuclear weapon. A handgun is a personal weapon designed to be used by an individual. Nuclear weapons are not. Apples and Oranges, stfu.
And before everyone loses sight of the legality issue: while the shooter did purchase the guns legally, he then brought them onto a school campus. That violates the Statutes of Virginia as well as Federal Law. Enforce the laws already in place and there would have been no guns at V Tech.
----
Actually, Because Virginia Tech is a "gun-free" zone, the university police officers weren't allowed to carry sidearms, which is why police were not able to respond quickly or properly in this situation. It's Virginia's ridiculous gun laws that makes crime so easy. Anybody can purchase a gun but the police are not allowed to do their jobs to enforce what few gun restrictions they have. Make the restrictions tighter on who can buy them and let POLICE OFFICERS have all the guns they want.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 17:09:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:15:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:01:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind. """
let's all have nuclear weapons then!
-------
No, let's not. That thought is just foolish. No one will stop you on the sidewalk and demand your property or person under threat of a nuclear weapon. No person will respond to such an attack by setting off a nuclear weapon. A handgun is a personal weapon designed to be used by an individual. Nuclear weapons are not. Apples and Oranges, stfu.
And before everyone loses sight of the legality issue: while the shooter did purchase the guns legally, he then brought them onto a school campus. That violates the Statutes of Virginia as well as Federal Law. Enforce the laws already in place and there would have been no guns at V Tech.
------------
if a mentally ill person can buy a gun legally, then your laws are fucked up..
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:32:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"It is a question of resources. If guns were made illegal tomorrow you would have a lot more criminals. A lot of people wouldn't just turn in their guns. And since we have millions of gun owners in the US who aren't tracked we would have millions of guns ready to be sold on the black market, or hoarded from the cops who whould have to waste time tracking them down."
Absolutely, of course there would still be many many existing guns out there, but it would be a lot harder for someone who wanted a gun to get one....and the existing guns would be gradually tracked down.
By the way, the UK case of rising gun crime after the ban is an interesting one.
before the ban, someone wanting to own a gun would need to meet certain conditions....it would be registered....and you'd need a license.....depended what kind of gun you wanted.
after the handgun ban anyone wanting to own a handgun would go into a shop and buy one with no checks or licence at all.
That sounds mad.....and it is......the problem is that the handgun ban was very very poorly legislated, it banned handguns, but not objects that are essentially handguns in waiting.......it is extremely easy to convert certain bb guns into a working handgun, and such guns-to-be are available for anyone to walk in and buy in any city centre. I could go and buy 50 of them tomorrow, and convert them myself after a bit of internet research.
In the case of the UK, guns actually DID become easier to obtain after the ban.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:28:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:19:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"More people are killed in drunk driving accidents than in gun deaths."
This may be wrong, I can't find the stat for this now. But suicide is included in a lot of gun related deaths so calling death by drinking a suicide doesn't negate it as something the state should ban if we are just looking at deaths caused by it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:19:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:11:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"There are responsible uses but but no need for it (there is alegitimate need for guns in some areas, ask a convenience store clerk who has pulled one). It kills more than guns."
that's very different too, alcohol kills a lot of people....but the vasy majority of the people it kills are people who chose to use alcohol.....suicide (kinda).
----------------------------------
More people are killed in drunk driving accidents than in gun deaths. It isn't suicide when a drunk plows into a family.
If you think it is reasonable to take away law abiding citizens right to own a gun what is the justification for taking away their right to drink? Used safely it hurts no one. True you can't kill a large group of people with alcohol, but if you look at the big picture it is a bigger killer than guns.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:15:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:01:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind. """
let's all have nuclear weapons then!
-------
No, let's not. That thought is just foolish. No one will stop you on the sidewalk and demand your property or person under threat of a nuclear weapon. No person will respond to such an attack by setting off a nuclear weapon. A handgun is a personal weapon designed to be used by an individual. Nuclear weapons are not. Apples and Oranges, stfu.
And before everyone loses sight of the legality issue: while the shooter did purchase the guns legally, he then brought them onto a school campus. That violates the Statutes of Virginia as well as Federal Law. Enforce the laws already in place and there would have been no guns at V Tech.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:15:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:04:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"We can't keep guns out of criminals hands now, how are we going to when cops are busy chasing after otherwise law abiding citizens?"
So you really disagree with my chainsaw analogy?
You really think that criminals would find it EASIER to get/keep guns if they were illegal?
If the answer to that is yes, then I suppose it's simply a difference of opinion/prediction, and though I think that would be a rather nutty opinion/prediction to have/make, that's your choice......if the answer's no then I really don't get what you're saying
-------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't a simple yes or no answer.
It is a question of resources. If guns were made illegal tomorrow you would have a lot more criminals. A lot of people wouldn't just turn in their guns. And since we have millions of gun owners in the US who aren't tracked we would have millions of guns ready to be sold on the black market, or hoarded from the cops who whould have to waste time tracking them down.
You don't seem to grasp how many more guns we have in the US compared to the UK prior to the gun ban. Even in the UK the gun ban hasn't significantly cut gun crime. How much good do you think it would do in the US?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:11:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"There are responsible uses but but no need for it (there is alegitimate need for guns in some areas, ask a convenience store clerk who has pulled one). It kills more than guns."
that's very different too, alcohol kills a lot of people....but the vasy majority of the people it kills are people who chose to use alcohol.....suicide (kinda).
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:07:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No, seriously, prevented what?
I live under a rock. A rock without cable.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:05:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:53:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oranges and apples, stfu
--------------------
What about alcohol?
There are responsible uses but but no need for it (there is alegitimate need for guns in some areas, ask a convenience store clerk who has pulled one). It kills more than guns.
It comes down to what rights you think the govt should be able to take from you in the name of safety.
I happen to feel particulary strongly about letting the govt take gun rights because in countries where it has happened crime has gone up, and in the US we can't get the guns out of criminals hands now.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:04:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"We can't keep guns out of criminals hands now, how are we going to when cops are busy chasing after otherwise law abiding citizens?"
So you really disagree with my chainsaw analogy?
You really think that criminals would find it EASIER to get/keep guns if they were illegal?
If the answer to that is yes, then I suppose it's simply a difference of opinion/prediction, and though I think that would be a rather nutty opinion/prediction to have/make, that's your choice......if the answer's no then I really don't get what you're saying
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:01:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind. """
let's all have nuclear weapons then!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind. """
let's all have nuclear weapons then!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:54:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:33:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In otherwords, when you say "chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem."
What you actually mean using the correct figures (taken from the statistics that you linked, so you can hardly argue with them) is 'chances of being murdered in the US are 3.8 times higher with our out of control gun problem'
That adds up to an extra 12,534 people murdered each year in the usa (and yes, that does take into account the difference in population).
So when you say you value your right to own a gun more than the 0.000028% greater chance of being killed.....what you actually mean is you value your right to own a gun more than 12,534 people losing their lives each year.
Although the liberal part of me aggrees with you that people should have the right to own guns, the realistic part of me says people cannot be trusted not to shoot each other with them. And your figures show that all too well.
----------------------------------------
Let me try and make it simple.
Lets say you have a one in a million chance of winning wit one lottery ticket, then your chances of winning are .0001%. If you buy three your chances are three times as high, but your increse in chance to win is only .0002%.
So the increase by .0028% is just as accurate as three times more likely.
And that is a make believe argument. If you want to talk realistic banning guns WOULD NOT STOP GUN CRIME. It didn't stop gun crime in the UK. In fact gun crime has incresed in the UK after the gun ban, while gun crime in the US has gone down. You are also ignoring how we have absurdly more guns in the US. If there were real moves to make them illegal don't you htink there would be stockpiling and an increase in the black market of guns?
You would have an argument if somehow magically a ban would make every gun disappear, but it wouldn't. We can't keep guns out of criminals hands now, how are we going to when cops are busy chasing after otherwise law abiding citizens?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:53:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i love how people compare carswith guns.
first of all, cars are used for transportation, guns are made to kill.
billions are spent to control traffic and regulate car safety. the only money spent on guns is to make them more efficient.
fast transport is useful and accounts for one of the main factor for our current way of life, guns don't do shit
in large majority, people kill others with their vehicles by accident or out of neglect (alcohol). with guns it's the other way around. most homicides are caused voluntarily.
yes, cars are pretty dangerous but if you were exposed to as many guns daily, i assure your life expectancy would drop significantly.
oranges and apples, stfu
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:36:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
*nods at woody*
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:33:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well I guess no-one wants to argue my points with me......and Indoninja, your maths is.....insane.....I have no clue where you're getting that figure from, I'll try and work out something for you hang on......
going by your figures (that link you posted) the usa had 3.72 gun killings and England/Wales had 0.11 (Scotlands figure was only very very slightly higher and the relative population of England and Scotland means it would have a negligble affect to indluce the figures....and no way in hell am I listening to any twat who thinks I should include the terrorism shootings in NI)
So that's 3.61 gun killings in the usa that didn't happen in the UK.....however there is of course the fact that some people would in the abscence of guns use other means.
UK homicide rates (again excluding NI, but Scotland is different enough to make a difference so I've added that in) are 1.5, usa is 5.7
In other words 4.2 more people are killed per 100,000 in the usa.....or each individual has a 0.000042% greater chance of getting killed. That doesn't sound much, but considering a UK persons chance of being murdered is only 0.000015% IN TOTAL 0.000042% is a lot.
Think about that.....your additional likelyhood of being murdered in the usa is more than twice as much as the total likelyhood of being murdered in the uk.
In otherwords, when you say "chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem."
What you actually mean using the correct figures (taken from the statistics that you linked, so you can hardly argue with them) is 'chances of being murdered in the US are 3.8 times higher with our out of control gun problem'
That adds up to an extra 12,534 people murdered each year in the usa (and yes, that does take into account the difference in population).
So when you say you value your right to own a gun more than the 0.000028% greater chance of being killed.....what you actually mean is you value your right to own a gun more than 12,534 people losing their lives each year.
Although the liberal part of me aggrees with you that people should have the right to own guns, the realistic part of me says people cannot be trusted not to shoot each other with them. And your figures show that all too well.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:31:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
The US has all the gun laws it needs already. And yes, this kid bought his guns legally. The guys who flew the planes into the WTC towers took their training legally too. Car crashes kill hundreds of people daily, and almost all involve legally licensed drivers. Legality is not the issue.
Guns can be used for good purposes or bad purposes. The presence of guns in the hands of private citizens of the US is a crime deterrent at the same time that it is occasionally a crime enabler. Most important in this thought is the point that the gun does deter the crime nor does it commit the crime. It is the presence of the gun AND the will to use it that has the effect. Would I give you my money just because you told me to? No. If you have a knife? Perhaps. If you have a gun? More likely. But what if I have a gun? Will you tell me to give you my money? Not likely. If you have a knife? Still not likely. If you have a gun too? Slightly more likely. But our guns do not make the decisions for us. You and I decide the outcome of that situation. The gun is not the issue.
It is the mindset of the people involved that leads to situations involving violence. The presence or absence of a particular weapon does not change the foundation of the situation, only the possible outcome. It is foolish to say that the guy would not have killed anyone if he had no guns. It is more reasonable to say that fewer people would have died if he had no guns. But it is not foolish at all to say that there would have been no shooting if the guy wasn't motivated to kill in the first place. The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:15:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
say if everyone was pro-gun,
and everyone had a gun to protect themselves..
and following this line of thinking,
the criminals will now go get hand-grenades so they can rob you..what next?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:11:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 14:45:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
- unequal wealth redistribution
- low collective IQ
- high rate of brown people
add to that no restriction on guns, it's no wonder school shootings are about as frequent in the US as bombings are in Iraq.
----------------------------------
But brown people don't do school shootings.
I can't wait until Jesse Jackson and Al sharpton get a hold of this one.
It was bad enough when only white people went on school shooting sprees, but now asian people, first generation asian people at that, are pulling ahead of blacks in school shooting. If that isn't an indication of the oppression inherent in the system towards blacks I don't know what is.
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:08:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Drugs are illegal, people are still able to get them, people still use them.
Drugs aren't very different from guns in this case. As long as their is a demand then somebody will supply it. There is no way to win the war against firearm related violence, but you can certainly make it worse. Banning firearms will do just that.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:06:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Prevented what?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 14:48:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
of course we had more school shootings, population wise, in my province than in the US but that's just a statistical anomaly :P
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 14:47:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Caul's comment just made me literally laugh out loud
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 14:45:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
- unequal wealth redistribution
- low collective IQ
- high rate of brown people
add to that no restriction on guns, it's no wonder school shootings are about as frequent in the US as bombings are in Iraq.
Submitted by yhywstudios (user info) at 2007-04-18 14:37:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anyway unless you can find some long term study that proves gun bans are specifically responsible for stopping gun crime it is pretty unreasonable to assume these studies are flawed just because you like gun bans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm actually undecided on this one and was just merely correcting what I perceived to be an overstatement of the studies implication. You make a good point generally.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 13:26:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by yhywstudios (user info) at 2007-04-18 13:10:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think its abit unfair to dismiss the effectiveness of gun banning based on one years worth of tabulated data. Surely the politicians who enacted these policies were thinking in terms of long term cost benefit. A 10 years survey would be a much better judge on its effectiveness, but since that is too long a timespan, we could try asking a suitable question which results can be immediately measured.
I.e Are there any exisitng data/ways in which we can measure the long term correlation between gun crimes and gun laws such that external factors can be accounted for in a statistically satisfactory manner.
And since its only in the long run which we are interested in, what you have quoted doesnt bear any significance to the debate. It is however a very good thing to abuse, since most people dont understand statistics.
----------------------
It is all the data I could find.
I know in the UK gun crime continued to rise pretty much every year since the gun ban, while in the US it has been falling pretty steadily for the last 15 years.
Long term studies also introduce a lot of uncertanties. I.E the general crime rate can vary a lot over a ten year period, but not much over a two year period, which makes it easier to isolate individual actions and their effect on certain types of crime.
Anyway unless you can find some long term study that proves gun bans are specifically responsible for stopping gun crime it is pretty unreasonable to assume these studies are flawed just because you like gun bans. I doubt the politicians were thinking longer than the next election.
Submitted by yhywstudios (user info) at 2007-04-18 13:10:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:29:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
From Australia?
"Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery - until the ban."
This is pretty dated, but all I could find. Doesn't really inspire confidence in gun bans.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/26/12629
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think its abit unfair to dismiss the effectiveness of gun banning based on one years worth of tabulated data. Surely the politicians who enacted these policies were thinking in terms of long term cost benefit. A 10 years survey would be a much better judge on its effectiveness, but since that is too long a timespan, we could try asking a suitable question which results can be immediately measured.
I.e Are there any exisitng data/ways in which we can measure the long term correlation between gun crimes and gun laws such that external factors can be accounted for in a statistically satisfactory manner.
And since its only in the long run which we are interested in, what you have quoted doesnt bear any significance to the debate. It is however a very good thing to abuse, since most people dont understand statistics.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 11:38:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hear hear, danger dude
Submitted by dangerdude (user info) at 2007-04-18 11:33:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Perkman, I just wanted to say something.
You're looking way too far into the situation and you're dishing out way too much misplaced blame.
A firearm is a tool. It is designed in every way to be a machine which kills.
Be it hunting or self-preservation, it doesn't matter. The GUN isn't what is killing. The gun is merely executing an action, a function of its user.
The person pulling the trigger is where the problem lies and that person is where the blame should be placed. If a man can decide to take another man's life then they should obviously be in question.
There is no amount of testing that can read into the future. There is no background check in the WORLD that will reveal exactly how someone will snap if they're pushed to their limits. You can't screen for things which you can't even define. There is no way to prevent this by CONTROLLING firearms. You're already doing almost all that you can to prevent abuse of the most lethal firearms, IE, concealed weapons and automatic weapons.
The problem is society. The problem is people. The problem is the way the media creates this over-sensational image of this whole clusterfuck. By showing everyone exactly how devastating this is, by letting them know it CAN happen and it WILL happen, by showing all of this shit on TV and having program after program go through every conceivable reason why and how it happened. That only FEEDS the menace, it shows the kids who are being pushed over the edge where to strike and how to strike the hardest. Kids who are on edge don't want to fade away quietly, they want to cause pain and suffering to the community which either abused them or ignored their problems.
The problem is people. We're fucking apathetic. Our communities grow and everyone grows apart, everyone changes. Society is ever-increasingly fucked up. Pair really shitty lives with really shitty people and a lot of strain and you get blowouts. Sometimes these blow outs walk around with a 9mm and when they go out its more than just a bang. The only way to stop this kind of massacre is to prevent this shit from even seeding. It's to help the kids that need help and fucking lock up the ones who can't deal.
Tougher penalties for those who fuck up with guns and a more sincere populous, especially in school. There definitely aren't enough councilors (there weren't when I went to highschool a few years back) to deal with all the kids and their petty bullshit.
--------
I'll concede that society is in part to blame. There were warning signs that this was coming. This kid wrote disturbing pieces in his creative writing class and the English department head at V-Tech actually recommended this kid for counselling several times, and actually went to the police department with concerns over his mental health. and this was in 2005! but nothing was done, and the kid was quickly forgotten. This kid was angry because society had basically ignored him and left him alone. People lash out because of this all the time, whether it be a 12-year old kid who starts fights for attention, or a 23-year old loner college student who blows away 32 people for no apparent reason. The problem is BECAUSE society is so fucked up we need to get rid of the MEANS to cause so much damage. This kid would never have been able obtain the guns he used illegally. This case didn't happen in some gang-riddled city where he could have gone to some street corner and bought a used pistol for $100, and in fact I dont believe a kid like this would have had the guts to do so. No, this happened in Blacksburg, VA, a town of a few thousand and in fact the university is about 3 times the size of the town. Instead this kid snapped one day, went down to the local gun store with a smile on his face and picked up 2 shiny new pistols LEGALLY, and then went and blew his classmates away. The fact is that I personally don't trust society enough to let people carry guns and use them responsibly, there are too many fucked up people out there that can do this exact thing. I personally dont want guns banned entirely, I feel that people have a right to use them recreationally and for defense, but handguns are the #1 cause of violent gun crime, specifically because a kid can throw them in his backpack and bring them to school, or stick one in his pants and rob a liquor store. If the kid had a rifle or a shotgun, he would never have been able to sneak it into his dorm room in the first place, and this never would have happened.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 11:11:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
haha, i don't really have an opinion either way..
but if you're being robbed, you won't know untill you have a gun in your face..
so it wouldn't make any difference if you were packing anyway..
might make the robber more jittery though..
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:55:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:33:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
do you have data seprating gun crime and gun deaths?
i would imagine the criminal would be less likely to shoot somebody if he knew the victims weren't likely to have guns..
-----------------
www.nationmaster.com lots of great stats.
But your line of thinking, if I follow it correctly, hurts my soul.
Are you trying to make an argument for gun control by saying criminals won't shoot honest citizens as much if they don't have guns to fight back with? Following that line of reasoning I shouldn't have a lock on my door because it will make a criminal break my door down.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:33:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
do you have data seprating gun crime and gun deaths?
i would imagine the criminal would be less likely to shoot somebody if he knew the victims weren't likely to have guns..
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:33:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-04-17 18:08:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
gun control is a horrible idea
_________
Nice to see you expounding on your opinions, Bart Bart.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:30:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm from NZ, if you could show me the stats of gun crime here and if it's bad - maybe it could shift my point of view alittle - but the fact is, everyone, criminal and honest has acsess to guns too easliy in your country, i visited america a few years ago and my hotel had to get evacuated because some doctor had been gunned down in the lobby --- and everyone there treated it like it wasnt a big deal. Some guy got fucking shot and people went on as if it was an inconvenice to them.
with guns it's too easy to shoot now think later, except later there's alot of people dead
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:29:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
From Australia?
"Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery - until the ban."
This is pretty dated, but all I could find. Doesn't really inspire confidence in gun bans.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/26/12629
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:21:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:15:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so no, i will never understand 'gun culture' i just know that if america had stricter gun laws - this probably wouldnt have happened. cos according to the reports i've seen - this guy wasnt a criminal and had gotten his guns legally - just like the columbine kids.
--------------------------
Lets pretend that someone hell bent on going on a shooting spree wouldn't have gotten guns illegally.
What about all the other criminals who are stopped or deterred from crime by gun carrying citizens?
I know this is an attention getting tragedy, but mass shootings really don't concern me. Many more people die from "regular" crime related deaths.
By the way what country are you from? I am guessing NZ or Australia? I would be really interested in gun crime data from there. If the laws have helped cut crime down that much I am suprised I have never seen them mentioned in anti-gun campaigners literature.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:15:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so no, i will never understand 'gun culture' i just know that if america had stricter gun laws - this probably wouldnt have happened. cos according to the reports i've seen - this guy wasnt a criminal and had gotten his guns legally - just like the columbine kids.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:03:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I cant speak for the UK, seeing as i don't live there, and you can spout all the facts that you want, but i can honestly say that i feel safer for living in a gun-free place - our police officers don't even carry guns, i've never seen a gun, i've never heard of anyone close to me having died from a gunshot wound let alone seen one. I live in a poor district and i can guarantee that i will never be shot in a 'driveby' to use the american term.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 09:50:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 09:36:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you just don't fucking get it do you? so saying the 'honest people' had a gun that day (at VT)that 30 people wouldnt have died? the shooter would have walked into the classroom and been faced with 'honest people' with their guns and there would have been this heroic showdown?
Guns will never solve the problem, they will always be the cause
----------------------------------
No, you don't get it.
In the grand scheme of gun deaths in the US this is a fucking blip.
It is no reason to go ape shit and start making laws that will do absolutely ntohing to stop crime. We can't get guns out of the hands of criminals now. What makes you think a gun ban, that will create much more work for police who have to take guns from otherwise honest citizens, will somehow allow them to more effectively take guns from criminals?
Gun crimes went *UP* in the Uk after the ban. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
Gun ownership by private citizens is a bigger deterrent to criminals than the cops when it comes to break ins (the only crime talked about in the quoted study). If your gun ban is so great why has crime shot through the roof in the UK compared tot he US in the last 10 years? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm
The fact is that the gun ban in the UK did not work and it would much more difficult to enforce in the US given the number of our guns (illegal and legal). All it would do in the US is leave an armed criminal element and strip honest citizens of their rights and the ability to defend themselves.
I don't think everyone having a gun is reasonable or even possible. But in two recent cases in the US shooters on rampages in schools have been stopped with private citizens using their personal weapons.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 09:36:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and once criminals knew they had nothing to fear from honest people crime would go through the roof.
-----
you just don't fucking get it do you? so saying the 'honest people' had a gun that day (at VT)that 30 people wouldnt have died? the shooter would have walked into the classroom and been faced with 'honest people' with their guns and there would have been this heroic showdown?
Guns will never solve the problem, they will always be the cause
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:57:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:52:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You can bring up the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' but guns make it alot fucking easier.
--------------------------------
Mass shootings get everyones attention but are a miniscule portion fo the gun deaths.
People for gun bans in the US don't have a leg to stand on with their argument unless they can explain how to get guns away from criminals, which we can't do now. All a ban would do is to take guns from people who wouldn't use them for crimes anyway.
and once criminals knew they had nothing to fear from honest people crime would go through the roof.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:52:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's very typical that some americans - after all that has happened recently - can still think that thier gun laws are alright. What the fuck will it take for people to get it? the last gun massacre that happened here (NZ) was in 1990 at Aramoana and our gun control laws got strict - so much so that it has not happened again in 17 years. on a larger scale, australia went through the port arthur massacre and their gun control laws got strict - and it hasnt happened again. But in the red corner we have the americans who have barely gotten over columbine and the social consequences that came with that and well hey some guy went 'hey im gonna shoot me some people today'. Guns are the problem - if he had walked in there with a fucking steak knife the casulty list would probably sit at... 2 and with a gun...30
You can bring up the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' but guns make it alot fucking easier.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:51:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 07:51:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sorry, just how did you come up with .000028%?
i think you should've multiplied it by 10 instead of dividing it by 1000, % are over 100, not 1000000
----------------------------------
.028 murders per 1000 people.
(.028)/1000 = (.0028)/100 = .0028%
I have no idea where I pulled those extra two zero's from.
But still I am willing to risk my .0028% chance increase of being murdered for the right to bear arms, especially considering gun bans in Britian did not decrease the gun crime rate.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:21:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they need guns because white boys can't fight..
----------------------------------
Then why do black people commit most of the gun crime when they are a minority in the US?
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:21:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2007-04-18 05:44:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why exactly is it you yanks need guns? They should have no place in any civilised society - OK answered my own question there - Civilised
--------
they need guns because white boys can't fight..
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:03:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2007-04-18 05:44:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why exactly is it you yanks need guns? They should have no place in any civilised society - OK answered my own question there - Civilised.
--------
Yes yes, real civilized. When was the last time you cunts held a soccer game without burning down a storefront, you limey faggot?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 07:52:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2007-04-18 05:27:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You're talking shit if you don't think a com[plete ban on firearms in the USA wouldn't reduce the killing of innocent students.
---------------------------
After the ban on firearms in the UK gun crime WENT UP.
Why do you think this would be different in the US where enforcing a ban would be next to impossible. the only people who would give up their guns are the people who would never commit a crime with them.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 07:51:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 07:34:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2007-04-18 01:05:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
murder rate in UK .014063 per 1000
in US .042802 per 1000
That means your chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem.
I value my right to own a gun more than I worry about that .000028%, and that is pretending it is a perfect world where a gun ban actually could get guns off the street (it can't, look at DC and NYC)
-----------------------------
rofl you're not much of a math whiz are you...
those numbers come out to a 3:1 ratio of US gun murders to UK gun murders, you stunted little gun nut faggot
-------------------------------------------
Those aren't gun murders those are murders.
My math is correct but I guess it is a little too complicated for you. Yeah you are three times more to be murdered in the US as the UK, but that is an increase in your actual chances of being murdered of .000028%
So unless you are the type of person who buys three lottery tickets because you think tripling your odds is a significant advantage then this number sin't a big deal.
Personally I don't even own a gun, but I am not a simple minded hysterical ninny who wants to take rights away from everyone who follows the law just because some nut flipped out.
------------
sorry, just how did you come up with .000028%?
i think you should've multiplied it by 10 instead of dividing it by 1000, % are over 100, not 1000000
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 07:49:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-17 23:16:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fact 1: Gun crime in the usa is extremely high (depending on the definition of extremely)
Hypothesis 1: This is in large part due to the high availability of guns (statement 4)
hypothesis 2: It could be reduced by making guns harder to obtain/illegal (Statement 1+2+3)
Statement 1: making guns illegal would cut out a large part of the 25%ish of gun crimes that are commited with legal weapons (self explanatory)
Statement 2: making guns illegal would also make it considerably more difficult to acquire/keep guns illegally (I don't have a chainsaw liscense, if I illegally owned a chainsaw, I doubt anyone who happened to see it in my garage would think to call the police, as chainsaws are legal. anyone seeing a gun in my garage (or wherever) would almost certainly alert the police)
Statement 3: the number of crimes that never happened, or were cut short, because of the criminals fears of/getting shot/threatened by armed civilians, does not outweigh the long term reduction in gun crimes if guns were outlawed. (pure conjecture, can't back it up, and you can't tear it down)
Statement 4: If guns were less available less people would have guns so there would be less gun crime (self explanatory)
--------------------------------------------
Sorry DC that might look good on paper (if you are comfortable taking rights away from law abiding people) but you are missing out on a lot.
First off the logistice in tracking down all the guns in the US (more guns than people).
If a law came out tomorrow making guns illegal and they set a date even a month in the future what do you think would happen?
Criminals who already had guns would become much more bold seeing as how there is nobody to stop them (gun ownership by small businesses is a huge crime deterrent), this would lead to more shootings as store owners tried to fight off robbers.
Break in rates would go through the roof, along with shootings that occasionally accompany them, but now it would be only the law breakers with guns. You know why the US has far less break-ins than the UK, and most of them (13% compared to 53% in the UK) are done when nobody is home? Because burglars are afraid of getting shot.
What do you think all the gun store owners would do? Their livelyhood would be gone, and even if they wouldn't take advantage of the soon to be booming black market, you can bet that someone else would buy up all their stock so they could.
As I mentioned before my chance of being murdered in the US is .000028% higher than it is in the UK. I am comfortable with that. I wouldn't want to trade my right to a gun *on the chance* that making guns illegal would somehow eliminate the 75% of gun crimes that are committed with illegally bought weapons.
Alcohol kills more people, has no real benefit to society, why shouldn't we get rid of it?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 07:34:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2007-04-18 01:05:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
murder rate in UK .014063 per 1000
in US .042802 per 1000
That means your chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem.
I value my right to own a gun more than I worry about that .000028%, and that is pretending it is a perfect world where a gun ban actually could get guns off the street (it can't, look at DC and NYC)
-----------------------------
rofl you're not much of a math whiz are you...
those numbers come out to a 3:1 ratio of US gun murders to UK gun murders, you stunted little gun nut faggot
-------------------------------------------
Those aren't gun murders those are murders.
My math is correct but I guess it is a little too complicated for you. Yeah you are three times more to be murdered in the US as the UK, but that is an increase in your actual chances of being murdered of .000028%
So unless you are the type of person who buys three lottery tickets because you think tripling your odds is a significant advantage then this number sin't a big deal.
Personally I don't even own a gun, but I am not a simple minded hysterical ninny who wants to take rights away from everyone who follows the law just because some nut flipped out.
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2007-04-18 05:44:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06."
(uh, must be an American stat, 4001 is by no means more than double 2378!)
---------------------
So 4000 INJURIES - that includes hunting / farming accidents, police shots, suicides, etc...
Compared to...
In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related DEATHS in the United States - over 80 deaths every day. (Source: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)
Hmmmmm maybe you're right, gun control isn't the way to control guns???!!!
For fuck sake.
Why exactly is it you yanks need guns? They should have no place in any civilised society - OK answered my own question there - Civilised.
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-04-18 05:30:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I LOVE MY GUNS!
But this post still sucked.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2007-04-18 05:28:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
A direct quote from wikipedia?!
Oooooh!
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2007-04-18 05:27:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This is bullshit - no guns - no shootings.
In the UK there is an increasing gun problem I'll give you that, but in the USA there is a currently appaulling gun problem which is down to the availability of guns.
The only people with guns in the UK are the ones willing to risk the huge jail scentences and who will pay the huge price a gun costs over here. Rather than picking up some 9mm rounds at you're local 7-11, you have to pay ridiculous price from a dodgy street dealer.
Plus give criminals guns and mostly (there are exceptions) they will shoot other criminals! In the US your system is so shoddy that angst filled teenagers can get hold of guns so easily, collect them even and shoot up there schools like this.
You're talking shit if you don't think a com[plete ban on firearms in the USA wouldn't reduce the killing of innocent students.
All teenagers are angry - it's hormones - just only Yank teenagers have guns to take it out on people with.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-04-18 05:16:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Your opinion on gun control is garbage and your motives for holding such an absurd viewpoint are worrying.
Please help me understand why you're so eager to arm everyone around you? It can't be because of 'criminals' because I've been to America and it's so sparsly populated that you barely even see an intimidating youth, let alone step outside of your car long enough to fall afoul of foul play.
Would you say it was that isolation that has created this feeling of vulnerability?
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-04-18 02:55:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06."
LOL. theres more guns in ets' bedroom cupboard than that. nice example douchebag. BUT ITS DOUBLE!!!111!!!1 OMG!1!!1
Submitted by stevie_says (user info) at 2007-04-18 02:53:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Give em some love, or give em some meds
--
The first time I read this, I read meds as 'meats' and that made me smile.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-04-18 02:25:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-17 23:29:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh, okay....it's ets, forget my last comment.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-17 23:28:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Assumption A: Firearms kill large numbers of people, many more in the U.S. than other developed nations.
Not completely true. Firearms, according to the 1993 study linked below, killed only 3.7 out of 100,000 people in the U.S. that year, not that far above other developed nations."
how does more than 10 times as much work out as being 'not that far above' in your brain?
--------------
Did you see the part where your Great Britain conveniently left Scotland and N.Ireland out of their equasions? Factor those in and we'll take another look at the statistics. I can't be bothered to look up the populations of the countrys in 1993 necessary to do it.
Perkman: Like everything else in life, there is a trade-off in preserving our basic rights. There is a trade-off in preserving the real freedoms we possess against encroachment by overzealous and harmful government actions. I fully realize that tragedies occur. I don't think there is a gun-owning soul in this country that doesn't feel saddened by the unnecessary loss of life, but the alternative is far worse.
A simple look at history will show you what happens when an armed force is put in proximity to an unarmed one for a length of time, particularly when there are racial, cultural, political, or ideological differences between them.
I am not a fan of my government. I am not a fan of what they are doing now and have been doing as long as I've been alive in terms of sapping off the wealth of the citizenry, taking us to wars unconstitutionally (i.e. without provocation), and staging terrorist attacks and blaming them on foreign entities for the purpose of furthering a pre-determined political policy agenda. I shudder to imagine what they would attempt and be capable of pulling off if the 2nd Amendment wasn't there acting as some (albeit feeble) brake for tyranny. Hell, even WITH the 2nd Amendment still mostly intact in most states, they STILL managed to "lawfully" take our land and our homes and hand them over to corporations.
All it takes is for one asshole inside the Federal Reserve to decide to recall the dollars and we will be in the deepest depression the world has ever known. Mortgages would be foreclosed on and anyone holding any sort of debt would either be in prison or servitude to pay it off. Most would simply lose their property.
It's tragic when anyone loses their life, moreso when it's dozens at a time, but knee-jerk reactions and moer limitations on liberty are not the answer. It's not going to solve the problem of human tragedy. There will always be pain and tragedy in life, there will always be malice in the minds of some men. As long as men have free will, some will choose a path of darkness, but free will is an essential component to the beauty of life; without it, we are no better than automata, going through the expected motions on the way to an uninspired end.
Give me a country that doesn't sensationalize national tragedy. Give me a free press that doesn't seek to point the finger at whomever their monetary backers tell them. Give me a land where, instead of throwing people in jail for smoking a joint, we let that slide and focus those resources on REAL treatment for the mentally, not just a Prozac and a "see me again next week". Give me these things, and I'll show you a country that can have its freedoms and enjoy them too.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-04-18 01:58:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Still-Life (user info) at 2007-04-18 01:36:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Perkman, I just wanted to say something.
You're looking way too far into the situation and you're dishing out way too much misplaced blame.
A firearm is a tool. It is designed in every way to be a machine which kills.
Be it hunting or self-preservation, it doesn't matter. The GUN isn't what is killing. The gun is merely executing an action, a function of its user.
The person pulling the trigger is where the problem lies and that person is where the blame should be placed. If a man can decide to take another man's life then they should obviously be in question.
There is no amount of testing that can read into the future. There is no background check in the WORLD that will reveal exactly how someone will snap if they're pushed to their limits. You can't screen for things which you can't even define. There is no way to prevent this by CONTROLLING firearms. You're already doing almost all that you can to prevent abuse of the most lethal firearms, IE, concealed weapons and automatic weapons.
The problem is society. The problem is people. The problem is the way the media creates this over-sensational image of this whole clusterfuck. By showing everyone exactly how devastating this is, by letting them know it CAN happen and it WILL happen, by showing all of this shit on TV and having program after program go through every conceivable reason why and how it happened. That only FEEDS the menace, it shows the kids who are being pushed over the edge where to strike and how to strike the hardest. Kids who are on edge don't want to fade away quietly, they want to cause pain and suffering to the community which either abused them or ignored their problems.
The problem is people. We're fucking apathetic. Our communities grow and everyone grows apart, everyone changes. Society is ever-increasingly fucked up. Pair really shitty lives with really shitty people and alot of strain and you get blowouts. Sometimes these blow outs walk around with a 9mm and when they go out its more than just a bang. The only way to stop this kind of massacre is to prevent this shit from even seeding. It's to help the kids that need help and fucking lock up the ones who can't deal.
Tougher penalties for those who fuck up with guns and a more sincere populous, especially in school. There definitely aren't enough councilors (there weren't when I went to highschool a few years back) to deal with all the kids and their petty bullshit.
Submitted by Still-Life (user info) at 2007-04-18 01:17:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2007-04-17 23:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You need stricter gun laws. You just do. But you can't take away the right of the people to own their guns either. It keeps the goverment on there toes a bit I guess.
------------
Why do people say this shit?
Most people who commit firearm related crimes DON'T OBEY THE LAW. They don't walk down to the gun store and wait a week to get their .44 magnum, they go down to chico around the corner and wait for him to finish his meth deal and buy a stolen 9mm for $100.
They already have huge amounts of control over the obvious shit like automatic weapons (requiring licensing, dealer's license, extensive background checks and taxes for the firearms alone) or conceal/carry permits (excessive background check and basically evaluation of need. If you don't live/work in an area where you need to carry a firearm, chances are you won't be allowed one)
So, if the criminals are going to have guns regardless of the amount of hoops a citizen must jump.. What's the point in having so many hoops? The govt already restricts firearms to non-felons and anyone with any kind of violent offense. Hell, getting in a shouting match with your spouse can get your right to bear arms revoked (domestic violence doesn't even have to be physical anymore.)
You know what's even worse? Trying to disarm the people while criminals run wild with firearms. If you take guns away from the people, they aren't going to have a way to defend themselves from the criminals who will have them regardless of the law.
The only effective means would be cutting it off at the source (stopping arms deals) or tougher penalties for offenses with a firearm, or possessing a stolen firearm etc.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2007-04-18 01:05:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:38:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We're not allowed guns in the UK, and our kids rarely get shot. Go figure."
---------------
murder rate in UK .014063 per 1000
in US .042802 per 1000
That means your chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem.
I value my right to own a gun more than I worry about that .000028%, and that is pretending it is a perfect world where a gun ban actually could get guns off the street (it can't, look at DC and NYC)
rofl you're not much of a math whiz are you...
those numbers come out to a 3:1 ratio of US gun murders to UK gun murders, you stunted little gun nut faggot
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2007-04-17 23:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You need stricter gun laws. You just do. But you can't take away the right of the people to own their guns either. It keeps the goverment on there toes a bit I guess.
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2007-04-17 23:40:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-04-17 23:10:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2007-04-17 22:57:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If someone wants to kill you they can do it with a pen, poison etc... the problem with guns is people that are angry or pissed off who are usually rational make a split hare decsion that they can't take back and the person is dead. Where as with a pen or poison this person would really have to think about it.
-----------
Maybe we should spend a little more time examining our social ills and the chemicals we're putting in our bodies these days instead of talking about how we can further limit our already obliterated Bill of Rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All right ETS. I understand. Our bill of Rights is being some what stomped upon if we curl back gun laws and make it harder for people to get guns. The problem with guns is the fact that there really is no practical use for them unless your hunting or to protect your home. There really is no way to change this fact. In America we have our guns just in case the goverment wants to come after us or goes nuts we can defend ourselves.
Now the question is at what price? We have 30 dead kids here. I think it should be harder for someone to be able to weld a gun. Make them go to more schooling or something of that nature. But the fact you can buy gun ammo at big 5 sporting good doesn't make my stomach feel that easy. It's too easy for a whacko to get a gun. But it is always going to be a test of wills. Guns will never leave americans because it is engrained in some as is George Washington's head is in a quarter. It is always going to be a part of us. I don't know if changing the laws will work. But understanding our need for guns and alot of kids needs to handle their problems so severely is. We need to understand why everybody is so pussified and quick to pick up a gun. This even happened in my own suburbon neighborhood.
The kids went from fighting with fists. To going to parties when we were 19 with pistols in there car and trying to jump people or pistol whip them instead of figthing. It is a changing of the times. Fights now or more violent, eveyone is on edge as if today is there last, racism is vastly growing back into premoniton just in USA but in Russia and across the world. Every body feels entitled to something that they had no hand in but the people of the same gender before them accomplished. Shit started to fall down and no one is trying to prevent the collaspe.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-17 23:29:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh, okay....it's ets, forget my last comment.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-17 23:28:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Assumption A: Firearms kill large numbers of people, many more in the U.S. than other developed nations.
Not completely true. Firearms, according to the 1993 study linked below, killed only 3.7 out of 100,000 people in the U.S. that year, not that far above other developed nations."
how does more than 10 times as much work out as being 'not that far above' in your brain?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-17 23:16:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fact 1: Gun crime in the usa is extremely high (depending on the definition of extremely)
Hypothesis 1: This is in large part due to the high availability of guns (statement 4)
hypothesis 2: It could be reduced by making guns harder to obtain/illegal (Statement 1+2+3)
Statement 1: making guns illegal would cut out a large part of the 25%ish of gun crimes that are commited with legal weapons (self explanatory)
Statement 2: making guns illegal would also make it considerably more difficult to acquire/keep guns illegally (I don't have a chainsaw liscense, if I illegally owned a chainsaw, I doubt anyone who happened to see it in my garage would think to call the police, as chainsaws are legal. anyone seeing a gun in my garage (or wherever) would almost certainly alert the police)
Statement 3: the number of crimes that never happened, or were cut short, because of the criminals fears of/getting shot/threatened by armed civilians, does not outweigh the long term reduction in gun crimes if guns were outlawed. (pure conjecture, can't back it up, and you can't tear it down)
Statement 4: If guns were less available less people would have guns so there would be less gun crime (self explanatory)
Perhaps this will work as a way to have a sensible debate on the issue.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-04-17 23:10:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2007-04-17 22:57:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If someone wants to kill you they can do it with a pen, poison etc... the problem with guns is people that are angry or pissed off who are usually rational make a split hare decsion that they can't take back and the person is dead. Where as with a pen or poison this person would really have to think about it.
-----------
Maybe we should spend a little more time examining our social ills and the chemicals we're putting in our bodies these days instead of talking about how we can further limit our already obliterated Bill of Rights.
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2007-04-17 22:57:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If someone wants to kill you they can do it with a pen, poison etc... the problem with guns is people that are angry or pissed off who are usually rational make a split hare decsion that they can't take back and the person is dead. Where as with a pen or poison this person would really have to think about it.
Guns are fucking nuts. But I guess we need them for something...
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-04-17 22:55:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-04-17 21:27:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-04-17 20:43:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-04-17 18:08:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
gun control is a horrible idea
**********
The voice of reason!!!!
Anyone wanna tell me why the framers of the constitution wanted the people to be armed? Hmmmm??
-=-=-=-=-=-
Oooh, oooh, I know this one. It was so they could form a well-regulated milita in order to protect the security of the nation. Obviously those subversive VT students were a threat to the country and the 4th Appalachian crazed Korean militia properly exercised its constitutional rights.
The 2nd Amendment was thrown in to appease anti-Federalists who rejected the idea of a professional military as essentially undemocratic and a threat to liberty (also the background for the third amendment), and the concession allowing for the organization of militias was necessary to ensure ratification of the Consitution in all the states.
Another compromise from its times, like the electoral college and the three-fifths rule, that's outlived its applicability.
-------------
This coming from yet another person who can't accept that 9/11 was an inside job and that we have nothing to fear but government itself.
Your assumptions of 2nd Amendment "outliving its applicability" is based on either naivete or stupidity... My past conversations with you pretty much rule out stupidity.
It only takes a man or woman of modicum intelligence to read American newspapers over the past 5 or 6 years or watch American TV to know that this goes far beyond just erosion of rights... We are being set up for a fucking fourth reich, plain and simple. This "Fourth Reich" is otherwise known as the "New World Order", otherwise known as the move toward "Globalism". The public's acclimation to having their firearms taken away from them in times of emergency is already well underway. Now, it's on to the everyday. Another brick in the wall, as they might say..."they" being classic rock bands.
Also, you have to consider your assumptions.
Assumption A: Firearms kill large numbers of people, many more in the U.S. than other developed nations.
Not completely true. Firearms, according to the 1993 study linked below, killed only 3.7 out of 100,000 people in the U.S. that year, not that far above other developed nations. And the homicide rates in general are even closer. I think we can all agree that living in the U.S., one should be far more concerned with dying in a car crash, from alcohol consumption, or from cancer caused by asbestos-laden dwellings and legal aspertame than we are about actually getting shot and dying from it.
Assumption B: Giving up guns to the government will save lives.
This is almost CERTAINLY not going to be so in the long term. If one assumes, as is perfectly reasonable to do, that the Nazis would have had a more difficult time executing all those millions of dissidents and ethnic persons if gun ownership had been legal, then a case can be made that gun ownership could have saved hundreds of thousands, even millions. And that's just one ethnic cleansing! Think of all those other brutal world regimes where many more millions have died. What if their citizenry had carried firearms, a means to fight back? Maybe the RIGHT people would have died. Maybe no one would have died at all.
The studies on firearm homicides go through the same filter of political spin as anything else. Take this study for instance: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
The author of that site, the rebuttal to the study, makes some very fair points, but there are even more subtle ways that the numbers can be skewed... Look at how England/Wales, Scotland, and N. Ireland are divided up, for instance. If N. Ireland were factored in in Homicides, Great Britain as a whole's numbers suffer and their strict gun control policies suddenly don't look as good. On the suicide front, Scotland drives those numbers upward, but again, they are broken off from England's numbers.
You might say, "Yes, but N. Ireland was a war zone in 1993 and Scotland is depressing." Sure, but so are Detroit and south central L.A, but we don't get to exponge all the murders from various gang wars from our numbers, do we.
Bottom line. Take your head out. This is about the preservation of a life that's worth living...one not spent in slavery or indentured servitude to some master who is only lord because he has all the guns.
Submitted by BeaverDamn (user info) at 2007-04-17 22:38:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, if there's a ban on guns I'm pretty sure a guy could still make a damn good bomb. Or he could just go on ebay and buy one of those quadrillion guns our government sells to third world countries every year.
----
"Gun control" doesn't do anything. If you're this psychotic, you'll find a way to blow the shit out of people.
Submitted by awj002 (user info) at 2007-04-17 22:29:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i agree with every word of this post. if people actually wanted to know why this shooting occurred, they'd ask questions about the shooter, not about gun control or any of that political shit. anyone who brings up politics is trying to find the specific in the general, which just isn't going to work. This isn't a general matter, this is a very rare and very specific matter.
Sure, maybe some different measures could have prevented this guy from killing less people, or allowed him to kill a few more people, but when you get right down to it, I'm more interested in WHY the hell a guy would want to go on a rampage in the first place.
Which, like this poster said, is probably because the shooter's parents fucked him up. Or he was bullied, or he had mental health issues, or all of these and more.
By the way, if there's a ban on guns I'm pretty sure a guy could still make a damn good bomb. Or he could just go on ebay and buy one of those quadrillion guns our government sells to third world countries every year.
Submitted by bicklefragile (user info) at 2007-04-17 22:20:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This gun control bullshit has me very upset. Why must every event in America be politicized. you want something to talk about?
My friend was shot twice in the leg. He stuck his thumb in the gunshot wound to stop the bleeding. He then ripped his tshirt in half to fashion a tourniquet. When that didn't work, he used the power cord from an overhead projector to tie off his own leg.
After extensive surgery, he is in ICU, and will likely recover. Without that electrical cord, he would have likely died, or at least lost his leg.
When your balls are as huge as his, then you have the right to use a tragedy to discuss your meaningless political views. Not before.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-04-17 21:50:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So, Coyote....basically what I said?
You bloody fact-merchant.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-04-17 21:27:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-04-17 20:43:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-04-17 18:08:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
gun control is a horrible idea
**********
The voice of reason!!!!
Anyone wanna tell me why the framers of the constitution wanted the people to be armed? Hmmmm??
-=-=-=-=-=-
Oooh, oooh, I know this one. It was so they could form a well-regulated milita in order to protect the security of the nation. Obviously those subversive VT students were a threat to the country and the 4th Appalachian crazed Korean militia properly exercised its constitutional rights.
The 2nd Amendment was thrown in to appease anti-Federalists who rejected the idea of a professional military as essentially undemocratic and a threat to liberty (also the background for the third amendment), and the concession allowing for the organization of militias was necessary to ensure ratification of the Consitution in all the states.
Another compromise from its times, like the electoral college and the three-fifths rule, that's outlived its applicability.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-04-17 21:22:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ain't no predicting crazy.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-04-17 21:20:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-04-17 17:34:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bicklefragile (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:48:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Gun control, my ass. If there's any one social problem at fault here, it's the fucking news media. I spent the last day and a half watching a picture of my friend, bloodied and being dragged unconscious from a building splashed all over the covers of newspapers and CNN to fucking sell adspace. Gun control my ass. I never really understood the phrase 'media jackals' until I watched these twisted fucks stop people on the street shouting, "do you know someone who died? do you want to talk about it?"
If I've learned ntohing else from this, its to hate the news media more than ever.
__________________________________________________________________________________
ABSOLUTELY the one thing in this entire post and all the reviews that I agree with 100%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am scared to see how twisted this all will become once politics set in.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-04-17 21:08:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:43:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-04-17 18:08:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
gun control is a horrible idea
**********
The voice of reason!!!!
Anyone wanna tell me why the framers of the constitution wanted the people to be armed? Hmmmm??
==============
Wasn't it to keep the King of England outta your face?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-04-17 20:54:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-04-17 20:43:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-04-17 18:08:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
gun control is a horrible idea
**********
The voice of reason!!!!
Anyone wanna tell me why the framers of the constitution wanted the people to be armed? Hmmmm??
Submitted by aldenso (user info) at 2007-04-17 19:24:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:14:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by aldenso (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:06:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
You are a moron.
Wikipedia is hardly a reputable, quality source. You do realize I could go on there right now and make a statistic that says "1000000000000000 people got shot in the last 10 seconds in Alaska"?
Second, Gun laws don't make guns illegal to own, you have to take a course and register them, that way when a gun is identified in a crime there is at least a lead to who owns that type of gun, then it can be narrowed down to where people live that own those guns, then there are a bunch of suspects
-------------
So you if he took a course it would have been easier to prove the guns were his after he killed the 32 people and himself? Brilliant idea, except it wouldn't have stopped this guy from killing anyone and about 75% of guns in the US used in crimes are opbtained illegally.
------
I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened, but it would have been harder for him to get these guns. He would have had to take courses and whatnot. And when there are stricter gun laws, in some places, they make the gun owners keep their guns in one case, locked with trigger locks on them, and then the ammo in another case locked up. This would make it harder for people to break into the houses and attain these guns illegally.
ANYWAY, I'm not saying his guns were obtained illegally, and it doesn't seem like they are, as there are pics of him with tons of guns, but he was apparently a normal guy that just blew up and started shooting. I'm not saying I would do this, but I'm pretty sure people who DO own tons of guns that are easily accessible could easily think that guns are a good way to solve problems. But if they were locked up he would have probably thought twice while opening the safe, removing the trigger lock, opening the next safe, taking out the ammo and loading the gun...and that also would help whoever is in danger time to get away...I'm sure he kept his gun someone like under his mattress, fully loaded, and just killed the RA, then since he knew he was in shit he just killed people cuz he was probably extremely infuriated.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-17 18:51:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-04-17 18:08:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
gun control is a horrible idea
---
because only the bad guys would blah blah blah
Bullshit. Why not sell advanced weapons to foreign powers on the basis that they could get them anyway - and that if you made it illegal then only the 'bad' countries would have weapons?
Come out with your hands on your head
Turn the rap music off and step away from the stereo
Put the rap album down,
leave MC Hammer alone - turn it off
What?
Guns don't kill people, rappers do
Ask any politician and he'll tell you it's true
It's a fact, music makes you violent
Like Michael Jackson telling little Timmy to be silent
You don't believe me, here's my hype
Offer me the record and I'll show you the type
Of criminal this rap shit is breeding
It's a fact that MC Hammer left me bleeding
Vanilla Ice made my mother say, "__"
If i stuck with 'UB40' then i woulda been in love
But I didn't, I got involved
Cypress fucking Hill taught me to make a fucking bomb
So I started, I bought another tape
The mob boys snapped me, my cock and balls ache
So remember kids till the head doubles up
Guns don't kill people, it's just rap
[Chorus]
Guns don't kill people, rappers do
Summon the police
Woop Woop Woop
Guns don't kill people, rappers do
Summon the police
Woop Woop Woop
Guns don't kill people, rappers do
I seen it in a documentary on BBC 2
Shot to death outside Hyper Value
Guns blazing like Michael Caine in Zulu
Gunners statistics are sometimes misleading
The type of criminal rap is breeding
Shot in the chest no one here stopped the bleeding
2-4 to base over, are you receiving?
Remember rap tracks in '87
scott the lots up in hip-hop heaven
Biggie and Tupac R.I.P.
Even Jam Master Jay's in the cemetery
[Chorus]
Guns don't kill people, rappers do
Summon the police
Woop Woop Woop
Guns don't kill people, rappers do
Summon the police
Woop Woop Woop
Guns don't kill people, rappers do
I'm a fucking rapper and I might kill you
As a rapper I'm teachin' you a lesson
AK-47 is a Smith and Weston
Just say no, just like Sammo
Bulletproof vest, two guns and ammo
Hip-Hop gangsta tripping
Even Eminem's into pistol whipping
Solid Crew told we're the ones
P. Diddy, J. Lo in a nightclub with a gun
Heard Snoop Dogg now wants to bust a cap
Guns don't kill people, it's just rap
One, two - yo, face my shoe
My name's Mike Balls and I'm coming through
Guns crimes, stabbin' and burgalarization
Is on the rise all across the nation
The safety's off and the pistol's aimed
The Yardies and the Mafia always get blamed
Politician's ashamed, and they haven't got a clue
Rap is more deadly than fucking kung-fu
[Chorus]
Guns don't kill people, rappers do
Summon the police
Woop Woop Woop
Guns don't kill people, rappers do
Summon the police
Woop Woop Woop
Guns don't kill people, wrappers do
From Bristol Zoo to B&Q
I wanna rap, I wanna rhyme
Heard it in a song, now I'm into gun crime
It's a sign of the times like Prince changing his name
You gotta have a shooter to be in the rap game
Like 'Michael Lown' about to stop
Guns don't kill people, it's just rap
[Chorus]
Guns don't kill people, rappers do
Summon the police
Woop Woop Woop
Guns don't kill people, rappers do
Summon the police
Woop Woop Woop
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-04-17 18:11:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/reviews.cfm/id/1298/page/pussy_is_the_best_gun_control.html
Haha.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-04-17 18:08:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
gun control is a horrible idea
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-04-17 18:08:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 05:43:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
you fucking spacker
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-04-17 17:34:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bicklefragile (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:48:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Gun control, my ass. If there's any one social problem at fault here, it's the fucking news media. I spent the last day and a half watching a picture of my friend, bloodied and being dragged unconscious from a building splashed all over the covers of newspapers and CNN to fucking sell adspace. Gun control my ass. I never really understood the phrase 'media jackals' until I watched these twisted fucks stop people on the street shouting, "do you know someone who died? do you want to talk about it?"
If I've learned ntohing else from this, its to hate the news media more than ever.
__________________________________________________________________________________
ABSOLUTELY the one thing in this entire post and all the reviews that I agree with 100%.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-17 17:26:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You know what I mean. Argue the main point, not the semantics. You're less restricted in movement by handguns and you're able to squeeze off more shots quickly.
---
Shotgun blast = multiple pellets
less restricted in movements? Seriously - what the FUCK are you talking about? Have you been watching too many John Woo films?
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-17 17:26:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You know what I mean. Argue the main point, not the semantics. You're less restricted in movement by handguns and you're able to squeeze off more shots quickly.
---
LISTEN YOU FUCKER - I'VE GOT A GUN - GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE
*deafeningly loud blast as shotgun goes off into the wall near the intruder - fragments spray him - kid shits himself and runs off*
If you have to have a long fire fight - then one of you is doing it wrongly.
Handguns are designed to be concealable.
Get rid of them. Stick with shotguns if you have to have a gun.
Submitted by BeaverDamn (user info) at 2007-04-17 17:20:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-17 17:16:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BeaverDamn (user info) at 2007-04-17 17:08:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by dangerdude (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:54:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't understand why you people think the internet isn't the perfect place to be arguing something like this. I was named Time Magazine's man of the year exactly for this sort of thing, so I'm gonna do just that. Lax gun control laws are the reason why this happened. here we had a fucked up kid who, instead of sitting in his room alone cutting himself over his girlfriend, instead decides to go buy a brand new gun and take it out on everyone else. I personally don't see the reason why anyone besides a law enforcement officer would ever have the need to own a handgun, or an assault rifle. If you want to "defend your household" or whatever, buy a fucking shotgun that you're kid can't stuff into a backpack and bring to school. and the only reason someone would want an assault rifle that I can think of is to shoot through police officers kevlar vests, so why are these back on the market? concealable weapons are by a huge margin the weapons used in violent crime, and if they were off the streets this would never have happened
------
How do you propose we get them off the streets? No one will turn them in. Once the guns are in the streets, you can't get them back out. And you're arguing against handguns? Handguns are probably one of the best guns to defend yourself with. If someone comes in your house, some people aren't going to want to be weighted down by giant shotties. If you have a handgun, you can move freely and get off a couple shots in quick succession. Assault rifles shouldn't be on the market, but getting rid of handguns is fucking stupid.
---
Listen you fucking spacker - weighted down?? What - are you running? How fucking HUGE is your house and how tiny are your arms if running down stairs with a shotgun tires you out?
----
You know what I mean. Argue the main point, not the semantics. You're less restricted in movement by handguns and you're able to squeeze off more shots quickly.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-17 17:16:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BeaverDamn (user info) at 2007-04-17 17:08:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by dangerdude (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:54:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't understand why you people think the internet isn't the perfect place to be arguing something like this. I was named Time Magazine's man of the year exactly for this sort of thing, so I'm gonna do just that. Lax gun control laws are the reason why this happened. here we had a fucked up kid who, instead of sitting in his room alone cutting himself over his girlfriend, instead decides to go buy a brand new gun and take it out on everyone else. I personally don't see the reason why anyone besides a law enforcement officer would ever have the need to own a handgun, or an assault rifle. If you want to "defend your household" or whatever, buy a fucking shotgun that you're kid can't stuff into a backpack and bring to school. and the only reason someone would want an assault rifle that I can think of is to shoot through police officers kevlar vests, so why are these back on the market? concealable weapons are by a huge margin the weapons used in violent crime, and if they were off the streets this would never have happened
------
How do you propose we get them off the streets? No one will turn them in. Once the guns are in the streets, you can't get them back out. And you're arguing against handguns? Handguns are probably one of the best guns to defend yourself with. If someone comes in your house, some people aren't going to want to be weighted down by giant shotties. If you have a handgun, you can move freely and get off a couple shots in quick succession. Assault rifles shouldn't be on the market, but getting rid of handguns is fucking stupid.
---
Listen you fucking spacker - weighted down?? What - are you running? How fucking HUGE is your house and how tiny are your arms if running down stairs with a shotgun tires you out?
Submitted by BeaverDamn (user info) at 2007-04-17 17:08:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by dangerdude (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:54:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't understand why you people think the internet isn't the perfect place to be arguing something like this. I was named Time Magazine's man of the year exactly for this sort of thing, so I'm gonna do just that. Lax gun control laws are the reason why this happened. here we had a fucked up kid who, instead of sitting in his room alone cutting himself over his girlfriend, instead decides to go buy a brand new gun and take it out on everyone else. I personally don't see the reason why anyone besides a law enforcement officer would ever have the need to own a handgun, or an assault rifle. If you want to "defend your household" or whatever, buy a fucking shotgun that you're kid can't stuff into a backpack and bring to school. and the only reason someone would want an assault rifle that I can think of is to shoot through police officers kevlar vests, so why are these back on the market? concealable weapons are by a huge margin the weapons used in violent crime, and if they were off the streets this would never have happened
------
How do you propose we get them off the streets? No one will turn them in. Once the guns are in the streets, you can't get them back out. And you're arguing against handguns? Handguns are probably one of the best guns to defend yourself with. If someone comes in your house, some people aren't going to want to be weighted down by giant shotties. If you have a handgun, you can move freely and get off a couple shots in quick succession. Assault rifles shouldn't be on the market, but getting rid of handguns is fucking stupid.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-17 17:01:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
now we have a problem because if we ban guns we take it away from law-abiding people but not criminals.
what if, gun control was relaxed and everybody got one, and the situation gets worse.. how you supposed to clean up after that?
and assault should definitely be banned. there was a gang of robbers in my country once, they used m16s. the cops, using those 6 shot pistols didn't even dare to arrive on the scene untill they were sure the gang had left.. no one blamed them..
Submitted by BeaverDamn (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:56:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, I'm sorry I couldn't get a better source than wikipedia, but I was a little pressed for time. If I had a good half hour, I wouldn't have made it so shitty, but hey, I got my point across. Oh also as an addition to my argument, VT was a gun free zone. Not that it was enforced, but it's just a point to show criminals do whatever the fuck they want.
Submitted by dangerdude (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:54:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't understand why you people think the internet isn't the perfect place to be arguing something like this. I was named Time Magazine's man of the year exactly for this sort of thing, so I'm gonna do just that. Lax gun control laws are the reason why this happened. here we had a fucked up kid who, instead of sitting in his room alone cutting himself over his girlfriend, instead decides to go buy a brand new gun and take it out on everyone else. I personally don't see the reason why anyone besides a law enforcement officer would ever have the need to own a handgun, or an assault rifle. If you want to "defend your household" or whatever, buy a fucking shotgun that you're kid can't stuff into a backpack and bring to school. and the only reason someone would want an assault rifle that I can think of is to shoot through police officers kevlar vests, so why are these back on the market? concealable weapons are by a huge margin the weapons used in violent crime, and if they were off the streets this would never have happened.
Submitted by jade_digitalmedia (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:42:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
in the words of creep. TROOF.
Submitted by Nugk (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:14:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll agree to gun control after every damn liberal fuck agree's to eat and cook with plastic knives. Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem. I say keep the guns and get rid of the people. As far as using the UK as a good example of public legislation, lets all realize that Brits drink tea and have a fucking QUEEN. There all Gay.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:14:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by aldenso (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:06:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
You are a moron.
Wikipedia is hardly a reputable, quality source. You do realize I could go on there right now and make a statistic that says "1000000000000000 people got shot in the last 10 seconds in Alaska"?
Second, Gun laws don't make guns illegal to own, you have to take a course and register them, that way when a gun is identified in a crime there is at least a lead to who owns that type of gun, then it can be narrowed down to where people live that own those guns, then there are a bunch of suspects
-------------
So you if he took a course it would have been easier to prove the guns were his after he killed the 32 people and himself? Brilliant idea, except it wouldn't have stopped this guy from killing anyone and about 75% of guns in the US used in crimes are opbtained illegally.
Submitted by aldenso (user info) at 2007-04-17 16:06:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
You are a moron.
Wikipedia is hardly a reputable, quality source. You do realize I could go on there right now and make a statistic that says "1000000000000000 people got shot in the last 10 seconds in Alaska"?
Second, Gun laws don't make guns illegal to own, you have to take a course and register them, that way when a gun is identified in a crime there is at least a lead to who owns that type of gun, then it can be narrowed down to where people live that own those guns, then there are a bunch of suspects.
You dumbass.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-04-17 15:57:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/100809#2382935
I didn't think he said that means no murders would ever happen... and you say this as though there ARE no murders in countries with gun control.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-04-17 15:56:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree with you mostly. All making guns illegal does is make it so that only outlaws have them.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-17 15:43:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you fucking spacker
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 14:27:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:58:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yup, restrictive gun laws have led to countries being overrun by gun crime. Let's just give everyone guns, then nobody will get shot, right?
Ha.
This is your Dunblane. Wake the fuck up.
----------------------
Look at DC. They have a gun ban and violent gun crime has gone up, but honest citizens aren't allowed to protect their homes.
This guy bought the first gun in March, he was planning this for a while so unless there was a complete gun ban it would have happened. Even if there was a complete gun ban look at DC there are ways to get guns.
The stricter gun laws in the UK passed after Dunblane did not decrease gun violence. "Gun violence was up 40% two years after the ban went into place." in 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
"Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show." in 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
Looks like that ban is doing great things over there.
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:58:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yup, restrictive gun laws have led to countries being overrun by gun crime. Let's just give everyone guns, then nobody will get shot, right?
Ha.
This is your Dunblane. Wake the fuck up.
Submitted by MEGACITO (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:51:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by bicklefragile (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:48:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Gun control, my ass. If there's any one social problem at fault here, it's the fucking news media. I spent the last day and a half watching a picture of my friend, bloodied and being dragged unconscious from a building splashed all over the covers of newspapers and CNN to fucking sell adspace. Gun control my ass. I never really understood the phrase 'media jackals' until I watched these twisted fucks stop people on the street shouting, "do you know someone who died? do you want to talk about it?"
If I've learned ntohing else from this, its to hate the news media more than ever.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:45:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Anyone who thinks gun laws could have prevented this is dead wrong."
Are you thick?
The guy went out and bought a gun then went to the school and shot 30 something people dead.
How on earth could gun laws have failed to prevent this? how would he have shot 30something people dead if he had been unable to purchase a gun?
This is the absolute perfect example of how gun laws could have prevented deaths.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:43:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
STFU
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:26:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
dfeeeryn yreyyem65e745
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:10:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
EmoJean, it's not plausible to take away all the handguns and assaults rifles currently present in the US. They failed with alcohol, and they continue to fail with all the other drugs.
However, gun laws restricting the future purchases of them would be a better starting point.
PFF, I don't even know what "NURRR" means... I do know you're quite immature when wrong, though.
Submitted by EmoJean (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:05:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
this could have been a good post, could have been presented in a good way but alas...it was not.
you see logical arguements can be made for a pro gun nation, sadly as the person is trying to make them some backwoods fuck jumps up and says 'imma keep ma guns so's i can protect maself from the idiots out there' and we are back to square one.
I believe the idea behind the right to bear arms was more about protecting ourselves from our own governments....tell me this...if you take away all the guns in the world and only the military and police and what have you have the guns...would you feel good about that...would you feel 'safe'?
do I have all the answers...no
have I ever claimed to...only when it might have gotten me laid
but seriously this has always been the problem with uber, we spit opinions at one another with closed minds and never actually debate, never actually go into a conversation with an open mind
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-17 13:00:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR COMMENT OF THE YEAR AWARD ALERT
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:56:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's a much better combo than what your parents told you.
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:55:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah ubersite + wikipedia is a good combo
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:53:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:43:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:39:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
While the notion that none of us will ever change the world through the internet may be correct, that is not sufficient reason to stop. PFF said that no one's mind will change, yet I can offer proof otherwise. My own mind has been changed through websites before. Uber, itself, has given me different views on things that I wouldn't have noticed.
------------
then you're a fucking idiot who'll believe anything
------------
Your if-then conclusions hint at poor education. Now, provided there were readers here who would believe anything, I'm glad they are provided with both sides of an argument--rather than being fed all the BS from one side of a story.
At least they'll be able to research more of each topic on their own time. I didn't say I believed any website without further research or reasoning.
PFF, go back to Habeeb's posts.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:53:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
don't be fucking retarded.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:44:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yea, if they want it they'll find a way, so why not keep the playing field level, that's the governments policy anyway.
Wait, that's flawed logic and wrong.
Consider the fact that nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are some bad shit. So the government bans them, then bans other countries whom the US has no legal right of control over, from developing them.
That's your logic. If everyone had nuclear weapons, then every country could defend itself. We wouldn't have needed to go to Kuwait a few years back, or Vietnam, or Korea, ect. because they could have defended themselves.
Wait, not everyone can be responsible with such destructive weapons so we shouldn't allow just anyone to have them?
Exactly
Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill people.
In light of this the government does need to place restrictions on how, and what types of guns are available for purchase. I bought my Remington 870 in No. Virgina a few years back. They have some of the most lax laws in the country. A quick background check through the computer (5 minutes, no kidding) and you get to walk home with a brand new gun.
With mentions of a receipt being found in this guy's bag, it seems like that is exactly what happened. He was losing it, and poor gun control laws facilitated this event.
Sure you can argue that he could have gone on a rampage with a knife or a car or something else, but we all know that it's a gun that really enables these kinds of things. A knife is much more personal, it takes strength and speed to overcome several people. With a gun anyone can be John Wayne and take out multiple targets in a short time with minimal effort.
Face it, there are so many gun deaths in America because gun toting pussies like yourself wouldn't feel so big and bad without your firearm, and one day when emotions get the best of you and you actually use the gun it will result in someones death because you resorted to the easy way of settling things.
I'm not for banning of all guns, but there is no practical reason for owning an assault rifle or handgun, even for protection.
I've lived and worked in some of the worst crime areas of some of the worst cities in America. I've never needed a gun, I'll never carry a gun cause I've I got balls. Real balls.
-2 trolling pussy
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:43:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:39:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
While the notion that none of us will ever change the world through the internet may be correct, that is not sufficient reason to stop. PFF said that no one's mind will change, yet I can offer proof otherwise. My own mind has been changed through websites before. Uber, itself, has given me different views on things that I wouldn't have noticed.
------------
then you're a fucking idiot who'll believe anything
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:42:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And Caul.. I'm glad you laughed.. that was semi-joke to begin with. """
it sounded like a shitty attempt at an analogy to me.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:42:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:34:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
statistics speak for themselves.
the only possible explanation for the disportionate amount of gun homicide in the US is the absence of proper gun restrictions.
-------------------------------------
One could argue that enforcement is the issue. Carrying (or selling)a gun illegally in the US rarely gets the maximum punishment, and I don't think the minimum sentences are that tough.
Personally I think we should have stricter laws for the sale of guns (and ammo), should close the gun show loopholes, and throw the book at people who break these laws. And that people like this would wait the seven days, and get the background check (this would happen anyway, but we could decrease the day to day gun violence).
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:41:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:23:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your logic is weak, but it's obvious from the title and tone of the post
***
also, your selection of weapons for the picture puts you on the fringe with the crazies and uninformed
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:39:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
While the notion that none of us will ever change the world through the internet may be correct, that is not sufficient reason to stop. PFF said that no one's mind will change, yet I can offer proof otherwise. My own mind has been changed through websites before. Uber, itself, has given me different views on things that I wouldn't have noticed.
Intellectual debate has been something valued, even among "non-qualified" individuals. The true stupid thing would be to stop debating. Even Immanuel Kant, the 18th century philosopher, pointed out that the free flow of information among the middle class was more of a duty for those who are capable.
PFF may find this stuff boring, but I don't find PFF to be the authority on anything, either. These intellectual debate posts have always been the reason I stayed on Uber. (Back in the better days of Razor, Yidele, etc)
And Caul.. I'm glad you laughed.. that was semi-joke to begin with.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:34:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
statistics speak for themselves.
the only possible explanation for the disportionate amount of gun homicide in the US is the absence of proper gun restrictions.
keep arguing about your 2nd amendement and how everyone needs a machine gun just in case and ENJOY YOUR THIRD WOLRD NATION :-D
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:32:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by GMCrayon (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:27:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Everyone on campus should be armed then. I mean, it's not like guns were ever used to settle disputes that would have ended typically in a fistfight. We should be down to the comfortable rate of one rage/drugs/alcohol/stress/emo/bugs bunny induced shooting every few days or so.
----------
Nowhere did I imply that everyone should eligible or forced to have a concealed weapon permit. Most places have very strict requirements to get them, and you would be hard pressed to find people committing crimes after they got them.
If guns had been allowed on campus it isn't unreasonable to think that this guy might have been stopped sooner, and since there isn't a single case (to my knowledge) of people with concealed weapons permits committing crimes on campus VT's ban does seem questionable.
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:30:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:06:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:56:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you're arguing on the internet about a political issue and guess what? nothing's going to get resolved, none of you are going to get your point across to anyone else, so why don't we all just shut the fuck up and go back to telling each other lame stories based around events that happened in movies?
----------------
No way!!
Rob Berg, the revolutionary, said that if we get smart people together on the internet to talk about the big issues we will solve all the worlds problems.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/100546
_________________________________________________-
Damn, beat me to it.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:30:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
He could have chose to drive his car onto campus and run down pedastrians, if he really didn't have any guns.
The hit-and-run vehicular serial killer, when a killer does come up with the idea, will be a big hit for pro-gun people."""
lol, pff is right.
stfu
Submitted by GMCrayon (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:27:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:20:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:08:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by GMCrayon (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:58:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your argument for relaxation of gun laws is that law-abiding citizens will be armed and be thus be able to protect themselves from nutjobs like this.
So, exactly how many law-abiding students in Vtech whipped out their handguns to blow this chap away? Or should carbines be standard issues for students?
--------------------
In 2002 two students stopped a school shooter at Appalachain Law School (they were breaking school rules, in soem states they would have been breaking the law by having a gun in their car on school).
In 1997 at Mississippi's Pearl High School the Assistant principle stopped a student in the middle of a shooting spree.
It isn't unprecedented to have armed citizens stopping these whackos.
--------------------
Everyone on campus should be armed then. I mean, it's not like guns were ever used to settle disputes that would have ended typically in a fistfight. We should be down to the comfortable rate of one rage/drugs/alcohol/stress/emo/bugs bunny induced shooting every few days or so.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:23:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your logic is weak, but it's obvious from the title and tone of the post you're not really interested in a debate, so have a -2 for trolling.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:22:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
unfortunately, in this case, it could have since virginia has a no-wait policy and this dirt-bag was from out of the country with few or no connections for under-the-table-firearms
at least that's the argument "they're" going to use and "they" will, unfortunately, win this round
i only hope the new knee-jerk reaction and regulation(s)stay on the state (virginia) level
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:21:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Cocaine is illegal, but that's also pretty rampant in my college town. He could have chose to drive his car onto campus and run down pedastrians, if he really didn't have any guns.
The hit-and-run vehicular serial killer, when a killer does come up with the idea, will be a big hit for pro-gun people. No pun intended.
As for the post.. parenting is not a solution, considering the shooter was raised in another country.
The solution to the "problem" is really just to be nicer to people. It's really that simple.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:20:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:08:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by GMCrayon (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:58:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your argument for relaxation of gun laws is that law-abiding citizens will be armed and be thus be able to protect themselves from nutjobs like this.
So, exactly how many law-abiding students in Vtech whipped out their handguns to blow this chap away? Or should carbines be standard issues for students?
--------------------
In 2002 two students stopped a school shooter at Appalachain Law School (they were breaking school rules, in soem states they would have been breaking the law by having a gun in their car on school).
In 1997 at Mississippi's Pearl High School the Assistant principle stopped a student in the middle of a shooting spree.
It isn't unprecedented to have armed citizens stopping these whackos.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:18:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 09:06:53 PDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:56:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you're arguing on the internet about a political issue and guess what? nothing's going to get resolved, none of you are going to get your point across to anyone else, so why don't we all just shut the fuck up and go back to telling each other lame stories based around events that happened in movies?
----------------
No way!!
Rob Berg, the revolutionary, said that if we get smart people together on the internet to talk about the big issues we will solve all the worlds problems.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/100546
------
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Submitted by Comfortably_Numb (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:16:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree, people who really want to kill will find a way.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:14:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I CAN NOT DECIDE WHICH SIDE TO TAKE. +2 AMBIVALENCE!
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:12:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I like to see most heated posts based around sloppy fake camwhores, call outs, shout outs and alter shenanigans, not boring political posts where everyone seems to think they know at least something about any given topic. Basically this is just going to go back and forth
"ban guns/lower murder rate/blah blah"
"don't ban guns/murder rate is due to blacks and mexicans not guns/responsible owners shouldn't be penalized/more guns = more safety"
until this piece of shit post is #1 most heated. It's boring. Most heated is about pitiful internet drama, it's not open mic night for amateur political pundits
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:12:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GMCrayon (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:58:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your argument for relaxation of gun laws is that law-abiding citizens will be armed and be thus be able to protect themselves from nutjobs like this.
So, exactly how many law-abiding students in Vtech whipped out their handguns to blow this chap away? Or should carbines be standard issues for students?
--------------
The law abiding people didn't bring the guns on campus because they weren't allowed.
Submitted by particle_man58 (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:09:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:08:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by GMCrayon (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:58:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your argument for relaxation of gun laws is that law-abiding citizens will be armed and be thus be able to protect themselves from nutjobs like this.
So, exactly how many law-abiding students in Vtech whipped out their handguns to blow this chap away? Or should carbines be standard issues for students?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:06:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:56:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you're arguing on the internet about a political issue and guess what? nothing's going to get resolved, none of you are going to get your point across to anyone else, so why don't we all just shut the fuck up and go back to telling each other lame stories based around events that happened in movies?
----------------
No way!!
Rob Berg, the revolutionary, said that if we get smart people together on the internet to talk about the big issues we will solve all the worlds problems.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/100546
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:05:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:01:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:58:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:56:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How long until this crosses over into an immigration issue.
---
And just how the fuck would it do that exactly?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
because it was not a white male between the ages of 20 and 35 that shot those people.
----
Fuck that. I know you're kidding, but he was here on a VISA. Are we going to ban people from even visiting? Loki's comment makes me want to punch something.
==========
I think it was more of a joke than anything...not a cut at foreigners. the fact is that it probably will since he, apparently was foreign and here on a visa. Someone with a point to prove will make this into a "lock the doors to america" campaign.
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:01:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:58:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:56:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How long until this crosses over into an immigration issue.
---
And just how the fuck would it do that exactly?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
because it was not a white male between the ages of 20 and 35 that shot those people.
----
Fuck that. I know you're kidding, but he was here on a VISA. Are we going to ban people from even visiting? Loki's comment makes me want to punch something.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-04-17 12:01:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:58:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:56:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How long until this crosses over into an immigration issue.
---
And just how the fuck would it do that exactly?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
because it was not a white male between the ages of 20 and 35 that shot those people.
-----
no, because it was not an american citizen. there are white men between 20-35 who are not american citizens as well.
at least he wasn't from NORTH korea.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:59:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You're right. Gun laws won't solve the problem. Gun ELIMINATION will.
The only true solution to this disease is global disarmament.
Submitted by GMCrayon (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:58:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Your argument for relaxation of gun laws is that law-abiding citizens will be armed and be thus be able to protect themselves from nutjobs like this.
So, exactly how many law-abiding students in Vtech whipped out their handguns to blow this chap away? Or should carbines be standard issues for students?
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:58:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:56:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How long until this crosses over into an immigration issue.
---
And just how the fuck would it do that exactly?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
because it was not a white male between the ages of 20 and 35 that shot those people.
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:56:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you're arguing on the internet about a political issue and guess what? nothing's going to get resolved, none of you are going to get your point across to anyone else, so why don't we all just shut the fuck up and go back to telling each other lame stories based around events that happened in movies?
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:56:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How long until this crosses over into an immigration issue.
---
And just how the fuck would it do that exactly?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:54:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
point about the pre-ban gun ownership in the uk. they also have a fifth of the population so numbers will likely be smaller anyway even if the percentage isn't. which it is.
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:52:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't know what the solution is; thats why I pay my taxes and things in the hope that someone brighter and more capable will try to do their best to sort this type of shit out.
It sucks. There are too many guns flying around and availability has got to be an issue.
Parental soultion is a possibility but enforcing it is nigh on impossible. Maybe if parents and schools were able to actually discipline kids these days it may help??? We wrap them up in cotton wool and pander to them rather than actually taking responsibilty for showing them right and wrong. They soon learn that parents and a lot of our Authority figures are actually impotent when it comes to dealing with them.
Education is where the main problem is I reckon. We seem to have a society, on both sides of the pond, where everyone is being told they can make it rich quick and be successful. Kids aren't brought up lossing; they are molly coddled and told that they are doing fine and will get there in the end. They all think that they will go onto college, then Uni and walk into a great job.
Pretty soon they realise that the world lied to them. That sadly out in the real world people do actually fail; and not everyone gets the dream job,someone has to fucking well empty my office bin at the end of the day.
But what the fuck do I know? I am but an impotent faceless internet stranger.
Whoever put that fucking tasteless message on the Uberboard should be fucking shot though; that I do know.
Submitted by bigdicrick (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree, guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns.
Wikipedia thing, that is written by regular everyday folks, like the people on here, those stats mean nothing.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How long until this crosses over into an immigration issue.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
On England's gun ban, only .1% of the population owned a gun to before the ban
------------
Because everyone in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are running about with weapons blasting like we were in a John Wayne movie!
BRITAINS ban on guns, BRITAIN!
Also, I disagree.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:38:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We're not allowed guns in the UK, and our kids rarely get shot. Go figure."
---------------
murder rate in UK .014063 per 1000
in US .042802 per 1000
That means your chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem.
I value my right to own a gun more than I worry about that .000028%, and that is pretending it is a perfect world where a gun ban actually could get guns off the street (it can't, look at DC and NYC)
Submitted by ubetidid (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:48:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
as long as there is a buck
to be made, weapons will be sold.
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:47:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:44:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree 100% with your sentiment, but "That's a direct quote from wikipedia." is like saying it is a direct quote from the guy who huffs paint and lives in my alley.
lol
Submitted by jojo747 (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:47:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
That's a direct quote from wikipedia.
You're not helping yourself with this.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:47:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
lol
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:44:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree 100% with your sentiment, but "That's a direct quote from wikipedia." is like saying it is a direct quote from the guy who huffs paint and lives in my alley.
Submitted by snag (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:41:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Here's the solution:
How about parents take some responsibility and quit fucking these kids up.
**********************
You call that a solution?
That's like saying:
OMG TEH SOLUTION FOR THE AIDS EPIDEMICS IS TEH CURE, DUHHHH!!!
Do you wonder at all HOW this solution would be carried out? Hmm?
I do.
Dumb post.
Submitted by JoeyG (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:41:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"That's a direct quote from wikipedia."
Not the most reliable source in the world, but I see the point you're trying to make.
I'm not sure who it was on uber today, who already said that guns aren't really an issue in the UK (apart from Nottingham, maybe), it's knives and gang culture - not emotionally unstable psychos flipping their lid and shooting people.
Making something illegal doesn't stop people using it.
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:40:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah that's the solution, forcing 100 million parents to raise their kids properly, what does that leave, less than a .0000001% margin of error? good plan fuckhead
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:38:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"32 less Yanks - Get in! - We're not allowed guns in the UK, and our kids rarely get shot. Go figure."
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:38:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I concur.
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:36:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This was a shit post, but right on!