Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Now tell me again....


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Now tell me again.... Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/22/2013 5:40:49 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

We have many cowards.
Go figure.


Way to go bruv, people who wish to reduce gun violence are cowards.... got to love that notion in a democracy.


No people who are afraid o defend themselves are. I doubt you can understand the difference.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 201
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/22/2013 5:49:43 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

We have many cowards.
Go figure.


Way to go bruv, people who wish to reduce gun violence are cowards.... got to love that notion in a democracy.


No people who are afraid o defend themselves are. I doubt you can understand the difference.


Lmfao... are you suggesting those of us who have no wish to carry guns are more afraid than those that do.

Thats a fucking hoot.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 202
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/22/2013 5:52:12 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

We have many cowards.
Go figure.


Way to go bruv, people who wish to reduce gun violence are cowards.... got to love that notion in a democracy.


No people who are afraid o defend themselves are. I doubt you can understand the difference.


Lmfao... are you suggesting those of us who have no wish to carry guns are more afraid than those that do.

Thats a fucking hoot.


Not all of them , but that is exactly what a coward would say.
And clearly you don't know he difference.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 9/22/2013 5:53:39 PM >


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 203
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/22/2013 5:57:15 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Not all of them , but that is exactly what a coward would say.
And clearly you don't know he difference.


laughable on so many levels.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 204
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/22/2013 6:04:46 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

We have many cowards.
Go figure.


Way to go bruv, people who wish to reduce gun violence are cowards.... got to love that notion in a democracy.


No people who are afraid o defend themselves are. I doubt you can understand the difference.


Lmfao... are you suggesting those of us who have no wish to carry guns are more afraid than those that do.

Thats a fucking hoot.


Not all of them , but that is exactly what a coward would say.
And clearly you don't know he difference.


Let me see if I understand you correctly.
A person who is too afraid to go outside without a gun is brave and someone who feels confident enough to go outside without a gun is a coward.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 205
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/22/2013 6:04:58 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Not all of them , but that is exactly what a coward would say.
And clearly you don't know he difference.


laughable on so many levels.


Fools hide behind insults

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 206
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/22/2013 6:07:34 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Fools hide behind insults



Clearly

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 207
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/22/2013 6:16:55 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The agreement by the pro gun groups that gun control laws will not work because criminals will not obey the law is at best a weak. Laws were created not change people behavior but to set a social boundary. Murder, rape, robbery, assault are behaviors that happen yet are against the law. Laws provide that if and when a person does violate a law our system has sanctions for it. So my question to pro gun groups is that do they want to ban all laws, then there would be no crime.

The statement that "guns kill people" is correct, after all how does a bullet enter a body? Metamorphosis?

As to the statement that guns influencing people" yes the can, depending on the person, they can be seen as phallic symbols, ego defense, etc.



the statement that guns kill people is fatuous. There have been millions of guns, hundreds of millions of guns - and there is not a SINGLE instance of a gun getting up and shooting someone. Ever.

Do guns make it easier for people to kill people - absolutely.

I can't talk for all in the pro-gun lobby, but my opposition to gun control stems from the following reasons.

1. A well armed citizen prevents tyranny of the state.

If you look at the 20th century - stalin killed 40 million. Mao 20 million, khmer rouge 8 million, Nazi Germany 6 milliion. You had genocide in armenia, ruanda, darfur.

In all those areas - there was a power inbalance. If you take the average of deaths per year - it is over a million people killed per year. So yes, we are horrified that 12,000 people die in the US due to gun violence. But we view it as a necessary evil to stop tyranny by the state from killing a million people a year.

2. We have a constitutional right to own weapons. And the constitution has a process to change those rights. Its called amendment. And I am frankly insulted when you try to cheat by chipping away at gun rights by laws instead of taking the honest approach - amendment.

3. Target shooting is fun, and hunting (although I abhor it) can be useful in providing food and as a test of skill. When you seek to ban gun ownership you are saying that its ok to deprive us of things that we enjoy - and for damn near no cause.

4. There are many other reasons - tradition, for example. Historical reenactment. Understanding military history. Collections. But fundamentally, the attack on gun rights is an attack on my right to defend my home, my land, my life the way I want. It is as offensive to us and regulating what happens in a bedroom is to you.

5. Finally and probably least is the idea that it is another huge government overreach (soemthing we hate in the first place). Just another ineffective government excuse to regulate and subjugate the people. It will not stop crime.

Yes, Britain has strict gun laws that reduce deaths due to guns. But have you looked at their deaths due to bludgeoning? Deaths due to kniving?




1. No evidence of well armed citizen prevent tyranny or anything for that matter. Stalin was elected, Hitler was elected, and he only banned guns for Jews, everyone else could have them. We gave Mao the guns and fought the khmer rouge remember?

2. So you value an object over human life, that is pro gun for you.

3. I have yet to read a law that calls for the taking away of guns.

4. Jeffery Dahmer enjoyed killing, are you saying that he should not have been charged for murder because he enjoyed killing?

5. The UNDOC reports that about 722 murders in England annual, our very own reporting shows some 13,000 murder, nuff said.

6. You did not read my statement on crime and law did you. "Laws were created not change people behavior but to set a social boundary."

7. US Supreme Court "The Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions." and
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."



1. No evidence? To the contrary - we have plenty of evidence. Why do you think the current controversy over syria is whether the US should be 1arming the rebels. Because it is pretty much a given that armed rebels are more effective than unarmed ones.

2. I have no idea how you get from my statement (follow the rules vis a vis bill of rights to your statement objects are more important than people.

3. Then clearly you need to read more proposed legislation. I don't really feel the need to google for you.

4. No. If I had meant that I would have said that. I said there are many valid reasons that people enjoy guns.

5. Comparing apples to bananas is not useful. Britain had extremely low rates of gun murders before the gun laws were passed.

Lets address the disparity a bit.
"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998)

Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:

In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.

"You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6

Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.

6. I read everything you said. And gave it due consideration. Law exists to punish behavior, and by such actions provide incentives for some behaviors and disincentives for others. Probably more than anything else, laws exist to protect the in place power structure.

7. And?



(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 208
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/22/2013 6:27:02 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The agreement by the pro gun groups that gun control laws will not work because criminals will not obey the law is at best a weak. Laws were created not change people behavior but to set a social boundary. Murder, rape, robbery, assault are behaviors that happen yet are against the law. Laws provide that if and when a person does violate a law our system has sanctions for it. So my question to pro gun groups is that do they want to ban all laws, then there would be no crime.

The statement that "guns kill people" is correct, after all how does a bullet enter a body? Metamorphosis?

As to the statement that guns influencing people" yes the can, depending on the person, they can be seen as phallic symbols, ego defense, etc.



the statement that guns kill people is fatuous. There have been millions of guns, hundreds of millions of guns - and there is not a SINGLE instance of a gun getting up and shooting someone. Ever.

Do guns make it easier for people to kill people - absolutely.

I can't talk for all in the pro-gun lobby, but my opposition to gun control stems from the following reasons.

1. A well armed citizen prevents tyranny of the state.

If you look at the 20th century - stalin killed 40 million. Mao 20 million, khmer rouge 8 million, Nazi Germany 6 milliion. You had genocide in armenia, ruanda, darfur.

In all those areas - there was a power inbalance. If you take the average of deaths per year - it is over a million people killed per year. So yes, we are horrified that 12,000 people die in the US due to gun violence. But we view it as a necessary evil to stop tyranny by the state from killing a million people a year.

2. We have a constitutional right to own weapons. And the constitution has a process to change those rights. Its called amendment. And I am frankly insulted when you try to cheat by chipping away at gun rights by laws instead of taking the honest approach - amendment.

3. Target shooting is fun, and hunting (although I abhor it) can be useful in providing food and as a test of skill. When you seek to ban gun ownership you are saying that its ok to deprive us of things that we enjoy - and for damn near no cause.

4. There are many other reasons - tradition, for example. Historical reenactment. Understanding military history. Collections. But fundamentally, the attack on gun rights is an attack on my right to defend my home, my land, my life the way I want. It is as offensive to us and regulating what happens in a bedroom is to you.

5. Finally and probably least is the idea that it is another huge government overreach (soemthing we hate in the first place). Just another ineffective government excuse to regulate and subjugate the people. It will not stop crime.

Yes, Britain has strict gun laws that reduce deaths due to guns. But have you looked at their deaths due to bludgeoning? Deaths due to kniving?




1. No evidence of well armed citizen prevent tyranny or anything for that matter. Stalin was elected, Hitler was elected, and he only banned guns for Jews, everyone else could have them. We gave Mao the guns and fought the khmer rouge remember?

2. So you value an object over human life, that is pro gun for you.

3. I have yet to read a law that calls for the taking away of guns.

4. Jeffery Dahmer enjoyed killing, are you saying that he should not have been charged for murder because he enjoyed killing?

5. The UNDOC reports that about 722 murders in England annual, our very own reporting shows some 13,000 murder, nuff said.

6. You did not read my statement on crime and law did you. "Laws were created not change people behavior but to set a social boundary."

7. US Supreme Court "The Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions." and
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."



1. No evidence? To the contrary - we have plenty of evidence. Why do you think the current controversy over syria is whether the US should be 1arming the rebels. Because it is pretty much a given that armed rebels are more effective than unarmed ones.

2. I have no idea how you get from my statement (follow the rules vis a vis bill of rights to your statement objects are more important than people.

3. Then clearly you need to read more proposed legislation. I don't really feel the need to google for you.

4. No. If I had meant that I would have said that. I said there are many valid reasons that people enjoy guns.

5. Comparing apples to bananas is not useful. Britain had extremely low rates of gun murders before the gun laws were passed.

Lets address the disparity a bit.
"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998)

Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:

In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.

"You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6

Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.

6. I read everything you said. And gave it due consideration. Law exists to punish behavior, and by such actions provide incentives for some behaviors and disincentives for others. Probably more than anything else, laws exist to protect the in place power structure.

7. And?



Laughable stuff... Why dont you try posting up to date figures......

1998.....2001...... Your dishonesty is showing. Latest gun crime figures for London show a 20% drop

Hey, in 1859 a man farted in Manchester....... can you imagine the outrage.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 209
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/23/2013 1:08:07 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Phydeaux
Britain had extremely low rates of gun murders before the gun laws were passed.

Lets address the disparity a bit.
"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998)

Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:



The argument here is that reducing levels of gun ownership makes a country more dangerous is based on a premise that fails to withstand scrutiny. The claim that high levels of gun ownership makes a country safer directly challenged by the analysis below (which uses up to date statistics, not ancient ones). As reported in 'The Guardian':

"Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.

Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least
."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

The full paper is:"Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths,” by Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, and Franz H. Messerli, MD
(DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.04.012). The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 126, Issue 10
(October 2013) published by Elsevier.

This analysis directly challenges one of the most basic myths advanced by the pro-gun lobby. So I was surprised when none of them challenged, or even commented on the report when I first posted it here on page 8 of this thread.



< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/23/2013 1:14:06 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 210
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/23/2013 1:50:30 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=520546668025519&set=a.406392286107625.96559.406061832807337&type=1&theater

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 211
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/23/2013 2:11:30 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Phydeaux
Britain had extremely low rates of gun murders before the gun laws were passed.

Lets address the disparity a bit.
"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998)

Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:



The argument here is that reducing levels of gun ownership makes a country more dangerous is based on a premise that fails to withstand scrutiny. The claim that high levels of gun ownership makes a country safer directly challenged by the analysis below (which uses up to date statistics, not ancient ones). As reported in 'The Guardian':

"Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.

Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least
."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

The full paper is:"Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths,” by Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, and Franz H. Messerli, MD
(DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.04.012). The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 126, Issue 10
(October 2013) published by Elsevier.

This analysis directly challenges one of the most basic myths advanced by the pro-gun lobby. So I was surprised when none of them challenged, or even commented on the report when I first posted it here on page 8 of this thread.



Well said tweak!
The figures bear out the truth of it.
And we're only talking about firearms-related deaths, not deaths by other means.

Like most pro-gun people, Phydeaux only quoted old figures and from a time when we (like the USA) only tried a partial restriction (only certain types of firearms - pistols). And again, like the USA, it failed miserably.
But since a country-wide restriction of guns, it has proven to work - as it did in Australia.
Note I said restriction, not a total ban.

Contrary to what some pro-gunners think, us anti-gun people aren't advocating a total gun ban.
What we are saying is to restrict guns by taking them off the streets completely.
That means you can't openly carry firearms without it being locked in a box with ammo separate.
That wouldn't impinge on recreational shooting, hunting, home defense or anything else.
It also means that anyone reporting a gun being seen in public would have an armed police squad arresting the culprit and confiscating the weapons. And that includes good gun owners as well as any criminals.
So it's not a black/white gun or no-gun issue as most pro-gunners seem to think.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 212
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/23/2013 2:29:57 AM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline
FR

What I see is a kind of addiction to guns, and thinking that aviability of guns could be reduce brings anxiety in many of the "responsible gun owners", this are just the same kind of reactions that smokers had when somking was forbidden inside closed pubblic facilities like bars or resturants, just the fact they had to walk 10 meters to go outside in order to smoke made them postal, and they begun to claim that pollution was a bigger issue, that their grandfather smoked his whole life and lived till 80 years while their neighbour died for a brain tumor at 40, that it was not their problem if you where too afraid of smoking and so on... this are my (p.s. I vote on the right side so socialism is not my issue)

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 213
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/23/2013 6:54:12 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Phydeaux
Britain had extremely low rates of gun murders before the gun laws were passed.

Lets address the disparity a bit.
"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998)

Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:



The argument here is that reducing levels of gun ownership makes a country more dangerous is based on a premise that fails to withstand scrutiny. The claim that high levels of gun ownership makes a country safer directly challenged by the analysis below (which uses up to date statistics, not ancient ones). As reported in 'The Guardian':

"Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.

Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least
."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

The full paper is:"Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths,” by Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, and Franz H. Messerli, MD
(DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.04.012). The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 126, Issue 10
(October 2013) published by Elsevier.

This analysis directly challenges one of the most basic myths advanced by the pro-gun lobby. So I was surprised when none of them challenged, or even commented on the report when I first posted it here on page 8 of this thread.



The cite does not seem to validate what it claims to do.
while it is true that the u.s. has the numbers to support the allegation there are others that do not or are not included.
The data show that many countries have high gun ownership but low gun crime rates. Iceland,sweden,switzerland for example.
Other countries that do have high gun ownership rates like cuba and n.korea are either not listed or are claimed to have no civilian ownership of firearms.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 214
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/23/2013 8:53:26 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Phydeaux
Britain had extremely low rates of gun murders before the gun laws were passed.

Lets address the disparity a bit.
"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998)

Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:



The argument here is that reducing levels of gun ownership makes a country more dangerous is based on a premise that fails to withstand scrutiny. The claim that high levels of gun ownership makes a country safer directly challenged by the analysis below (which uses up to date statistics, not ancient ones). As reported in 'The Guardian':

"Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.

Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least
."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

The full paper is:"Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths,” by Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, and Franz H. Messerli, MD
(DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.04.012). The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 126, Issue 10
(October 2013) published by Elsevier.

This analysis directly challenges one of the most basic myths advanced by the pro-gun lobby. So I was surprised when none of them challenged, or even commented on the report when I first posted it here on page 8 of this thread.



Well said tweak!
The figures bear out the truth of it.
And we're only talking about firearms-related deaths, not deaths by other means.

Like most pro-gun people, Phydeaux only quoted old figures and from a time when we (like the USA) only tried a partial restriction (only certain types of firearms - pistols). And again, like the USA, it failed miserably.
But since a country-wide restriction of guns, it has proven to work - as it did in Australia.
Note I said restriction, not a total ban.

Contrary to what some pro-gunners think, us anti-gun people aren't advocating a total gun ban.
What we are saying is to restrict guns by taking them off the streets completely.
That means you can't openly carry firearms without it being locked in a box with ammo separate.
That wouldn't impinge on recreational shooting, hunting, home defense or anything else.
It also means that anyone reporting a gun being seen in public would have an armed police squad arresting the culprit and confiscating the weapons. And that includes good gun owners as well as any criminals.
So it's not a black/white gun or no-gun issue as most pro-gunners seem to think.



I am happy to quote current statistics. Such as Gun ownership doubling. Gun violence going down, over the last few years up until this year. Recent enough for you?

And for the record - I don't own a gun - and never have. You pretty much ignored every reason I gave why people are pro-guns. Hard to win converts ignoring people's issues.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 215
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/23/2013 9:00:46 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Phydeaux
Britain had extremely low rates of gun murders before the gun laws were passed.

Lets address the disparity a bit.
"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998)

Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:



The argument here is that reducing levels of gun ownership makes a country more dangerous is based on a premise that fails to withstand scrutiny. The claim that high levels of gun ownership makes a country safer directly challenged by the analysis below (which uses up to date statistics, not ancient ones).


Nor did I advance such a claim. What I advanced is that gun control laws do not reduce gun violence. What you view as 'ancient' statistice I specifically chose as a benchmark.

Gun control nuts make the argument that britain has gun control laws and very low gun deaths. therefore gun control works.

This is shown to be false as gun deaths rose after the pistol act of 1903 and after the tighter restrictions later. Gun deaths are higher now than before gun control laws were passed - and there is now a 100 year history showing gun control laws did not do what gun control advocates say they did.

Second - I am conversant with your study you quoted. The fact that they were doctors is of no bearing in the study. Their expertise as doctors doesn't come into play. You might as well query them on lunar phases of the moon, brazilian soccer, or man in the mooon marigolds.

Thats study was utter tripe

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 216
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/23/2013 9:06:04 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

We have many cowards.
Go figure.


Way to go bruv, people who wish to reduce gun violence are cowards.... got to love that notion in a democracy.


No people who are afraid o defend themselves are. I doubt you can understand the difference.


Lmfao... are you suggesting those of us who have no wish to carry guns are more afraid than those that do.

Thats a fucking hoot.


Not all of them , but that is exactly what a coward would say.
And clearly you don't know he difference.


Let me see if I understand you correctly.
A person who is too afraid to go outside without a gun is brave and someone who feels confident enough to go outside without a gun is a coward.


No not close.
Someone who carries when it is dangerous not to is smart.
Have you ever seen High Noon?
Towns people were afraid to fight.
They told themselves that it was the one man willing to stand up to the criminals who was making trouble.
People who are afraid to defend themselves now pretend that there is something wrong with those who want the means to defend themselves.
There are, of course, those who oppose violence on principle. There are many who try to hide behind a façade of making the man who defends himself the moral equivalent of the scum who attacks him.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 217
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/23/2013 9:21:49 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
If the mods are reading this, close this thread, it is going in circles.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 218
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/23/2013 9:28:38 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
I tend to agree.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 219
RE: Now tell me again.... - 9/23/2013 9:54:09 AM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
Wait, I want the last word.

Guns are good for society as a whole and if ya don't believe that then your brain is cracked.

< Message edited by lovmuffin -- 9/23/2013 10:04:20 AM >


_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 220
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Now tell me again.... Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156