quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I couldn't agree more. And to bama, there was plenty of time between the shooting and when he was shot that he could have easily shot numerous other individuals, and it wasn't at that point that he had met armed resistance. If you even bothered to watch the video footage, he didn't really meet much armed opposition until he entered the parliament building. What he had was essentially a hunting rifle, not exactly a mass killing weapon the same way many other weapons in the states are. If he had a weapon that could he could spray and pray, or one with a bigger magazine, then yeah, more people would be dead. And if the Long Gun registry was still in effect, it would be easy to assume that he wouldn't have been able to get ahold of such a weapon in the first place.

I'm not sugar coating this because the statistics back it up 110% when you compare the number of shootings and their severity in Canada vs the USA. If Canada had the same gun restrictions as the USA, more people would have died, pure and simple. The fact that this guy had a gun which is now easier to attain is pretty good proof of that. If you make it easier for murderers and criminals to get guns, they will use them.

You are wrong, because you get bad info. Hunting rifles are much more lethal than ARs. The .223 which is what it shoots isn't even legal for hunting anything bigger than groundhog because it lacks power. Shooting faster is only helpful for pinning people down, other than that it just wastes ammo. One round from a 30-30 will bring down a person, you are far more likely to need a second or third round from a .223 to do this.

Fuck man, I dont know what the fuck you're talking about, we're not talking about how powerful a gun is, and in this case IT DOESNT MATTER. It takes a pound of pressure to puncture flesh, and it's not like everyone is wearing a bullet proof vest like in the USA. Every gun on the planet will impact with more strength than a pound, from almost any distance. How many american killing sprees were done with a hunting rifle where the guy wasn't an expert sniper or marksman? In Cirillo's case, where the guy wasn't an expert shooter, then the gun of choice wouldn't ideally be a hunting rifle. He used a hunting rifle because it was easier to get, simple as that. If you swung a gun from left to right which can fire off 100 rounds in 20 seconds, you'll have a better chance of getting maximum casualties than if you shot the same way with a hunting rifle. Efficiency man, cmon, I know you're thick but you can't be this thick.

Practically no one outside of law enforcement in the U S wear bullet "proof" vests, but if you are attacking Congress, or your Parliament, you have to expect the security people to be wearing them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Are you actually saying that the fact that the police can't protect you convinced you that people shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. I hope that is not what you meant.[/color]

No, I'm saying that it forces people to an individualist outlook at rock bottom. 'Society' (and what it can do) is 'not there for you'.

That would seem to lead a person to oppose taking guns from citizens, not to encourage it.

It would do, yes, unless there's a fundamental re-think on the acceptance of the police not being able to protect you. Either more police or less danger from which they protect you, would obviously be the first thing.

Yes more police would help and in the big cities like Detroit where the people live close together, this would mean faster response times. Unfortunately at least in Detroits case, they have been mismanaged to the point that they don't have the money to hire them. So that's not going to happen. So we move to your next suggestion of less danger. Also a good idea although from what I have seen the police are already locking people up and that hasn't stopped the criminals so I am not sure how you are going to do that. I suppose they could impose stricter sentencing but then people would just bitch about how many people we lock up. Oh wait, they already do that. Never mind. I guess the solution isn't quite as simple as you seem to think it is.

This goes to cultures that are more individualistic on the one hand, or more socially-oriented, on the other. This is an example of how you try to simplify things so much - in order the better to knock it down - that you just end up having an inane argument with yourself, alone. That wasn't even a straw man - it was more like just one piece of straw.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
I wondered at the time why you would throw out such a simplistic approach to the problem. thanks for explaining that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
I wondered at the time why you would throw out such a simplistic approach to the problem. thanks for explaining that.

Jesus .... sometimes I reckon I could chuck a grenade at your head and still nothing would penetrate it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

hatred makes people say some pretty goofy things doesn't it?

HAHAHA

dude I am 56 yrs old, live in the inner city of the city that ranks 1st, 2nd or 3rd in homocides in the USA every year, and I have never worn a bullet proof vest, nor do I even know a SINGLE person who owns one


I used to know over 100 people who wore vests. But then I ran supply for the Sheriffs office. Among civilians the total number I have know who wore them is 0 and I have 8 years on you. Being a Canadian I doubt that he has any idea how hot those things can get. We had to replace vests every three years because the sweat had degraded the kevlar so badly.
Interestingly we would then ship them to UK departments who where glad to have them as (for what ever reason) they were not issued vests.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

hatred makes people say some pretty goofy things doesn't it?

HAHAHA

dude I am 56 yrs old, live in the inner city of the city that ranks 1st, 2nd or 3rd in homocides in the USA every year, and I have never worn a bullet proof vest, nor do I even know a SINGLE person who owns one


I used to know over 100 people who wore vests. But then I ran supply for the Sheriffs office. Among civilians the total number I have know who wore them is 0 and I have 8 years on you. Being a Canadian I doubt that he has any idea how hot those things can get. We had to replace vests every three years because the sweat had degraded the kevlar so badly.
Interestingly we would then ship them to UK departments who where glad to have them as (for what ever reason) they were not issued vests.

The last time I wore body kevlar I was throwing a grenade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

hatred makes people say some pretty goofy things doesn't it?

HAHAHA

dude I am 56 yrs old, live in the inner city of the city that ranks 1st, 2nd or 3rd in homocides in the USA every year, and I have never worn a bullet proof vest, nor do I even know a SINGLE person who owns one


I used to know over 100 people who wore vests. But then I ran supply for the Sheriffs office. Among civilians the total number I have know who wore them is 0 and I have 8 years on you. Being a Canadian I doubt that he has any idea how hot those things can get. We had to replace vests every three years because the sweat had degraded the kevlar so badly.
Interestingly we would then ship them to UK departments who where glad to have them as (for what ever reason) they were not issued vests.

The last time I wore body kevlar I was throwing a grenade.

Army, right? Don't want any of the anti gun people to assume that is how you deal with trespassing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Boy oh boy, are you really so stupid ? The thread is about gun control, so you want to say gun control doesnt work, since people still get killed. You cant even get that part either. Murder rates in the UK are falling and have done so after the most recent ban on hand guns. crime is also falling, including violent crime.

How does your theory explain the fact that homicide rates in the United States have fallen more than fifty percent since their peak in the 1980's, while during the same time period the number of legal guns on the street more than quadrupled? In 1986, only 8 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. By 1991, the number of "shall issue" states had doubled to 16. In 2001, 31 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. Five years later it was 37, and by 2013 a total of 42 states had adopted either "shall issue" or unrestricted carry.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

PSSSSSTT, hey dude, gun control can only be claimed to WORK if you can show a link between said gun control and an ACTUAL SAVING OF LIVES OVERALL

yes yes it can be truthfully stated that LESS PEOPLE DIED BY SHOOTING, but did less people DIE OVERALL, or were they just killed a DIFFERANT WAY?

hey YOU are the one who said, its about SAVING LIVES, not me. so YOU opened that door.

and BTW thanks for the link, I found these two lines to be quite interesting

"Due to fundamental differences in how crime is recorded and categorized, it’s impossible to compute exactly what the British violent crime rate would be if it were calculated the way the FBI does it, but if we must compare the two, my best estimate‡ would be something like 776 violent crimes per 100,000 people. While this is still substantially higher than the rate in the United States, it’s nowhere near the 2,034 cited by Swann and the Mail."

"None of this disproves the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis (though the statistical evidence on whether gun ownership directly affects local crime rates, up or down, appears to be a wash), nor does it make any of the gun control proposals currently being debated any more attractive"

which in a nutshell says, while violent is not AS BAD as some reporter made it sound, it sill quite a bit worse than USA...

and he says pretty much what I said, factoring in gun control seems to be a wash, meaning no significant improvement nor worsening

which is basicly what I asked.

I didn't even mention anything about violent crime rates, just that so far all anyone has ever shown is crime using guns it DOWN, but NO ONE has ever shown anything that says violent crime or murders is down because of the gun controls...

BTW, YOU are the one who claims IT WORKS, not me, I never made any claim whatsoever, sooo its on you to PROVE YOUR CLAIM..

all I said was if you remove some element from an equation, then its OBVIOUS that data concerning THAT ELEMENT is going to fall sharply, but that does NOT PROVE you achieved your goal of SAVING LIVES, all it proves is they DID NOT GET SHOT

it tells me ALOT though that "MR CIVILIZED" has to resort to NAME CALLING

I have never called you a name ONCE EVER, yet I am the SAVAGE and you are the CIVILIZED ONE.....

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

PSSSSSTT, hey dude, gun control can only be claimed to WORK if you can show a link between said gun control and an ACTUAL SAVING OF LIVES OVERALL

yes yes it can be truthfully stated that LESS PEOPLE DIED BY SHOOTING, but did less people DIE OVERALL, or were they just killed a DIFFERANT WAY?

hey YOU are the one who said, its about SAVING LIVES, not me. so YOU opened that door.

and BTW thanks for the link, I found these two lines to be quite interesting

"Due to fundamental differences in how crime is recorded and categorized, it’s impossible to compute exactly what the British violent crime rate would be if it were calculated the way the FBI does it, but if we must compare the two, my best estimate‡ would be something like 776 violent crimes per 100,000 people. While this is still substantially higher than the rate in the United States, it’s nowhere near the 2,034 cited by Swann and the Mail."

"None of this disproves the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis (though the statistical evidence on whether gun ownership directly affects local crime rates, up or down, appears to be a wash), nor does it make any of the gun control proposals currently being debated any more attractive"

which in a nutshell says, while violent is not AS BAD as some reporter made it sound, it sill quite a bit worse than USA...

and he says pretty much what I said, factoring in gun control seems to be a wash, meaning no significant improvement nor worsening

which is basicly what I asked.

I didn't even mention anything about violent crime rates, just that so far all anyone has ever shown is crime using guns it DOWN, but NO ONE has ever shown anything that says violent crime or murders is down because of the gun controls...

BTW, YOU are the one who claims IT WORKS, not me, I never made any claim whatsoever, sooo its on you to PROVE YOUR CLAIM..

all I said was if you remove some element from an equation, then its OBVIOUS that data concerning THAT ELEMENT is going to fall sharply, but that does NOT PROVE you achieved your goal of SAVING LIVES, all it proves is they DID NOT GET SHOT

it tells me ALOT though that "MR CIVILIZED" has to resort to NAME CALLING

I have never called you a name ONCE EVER, yet I am the SAVAGE and you are the CIVILIZED ONE.....

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK

How dare you suggest I have called you a savage, I have only ever called you stupid, thick or ignorant.

That said, your point about the Mail is indeed bullshit, just like the Mails article itself. Do some research on the article the Mail lifted to base its claim on, and how that "Cough" Reasearch "cough" was carried out. Violent crimes in the UK are not the same thing as violent crimes in the US. We set a lower standard of what is and isnt a violent crime. Naturally enough your violent crime rate may seem lower but it isnt. You are using skewed figures. Murders in the UK also spiked when the case of long term serial killer Dr Howard Shipmans 300 victims were included in one go.

You want me to prove gun laws work, how about this difficult to follow concept, we have less people killed than you do in the US, as do all the other nations mentioned in my link.

quote:

Child sex exploitation 'social norm' in Greater Manchester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

PSSSSSTT, hey dude, gun control can only be claimed to WORK if you can show a link between said gun control and an ACTUAL SAVING OF LIVES OVERALL

yes yes it can be truthfully stated that LESS PEOPLE DIED BY SHOOTING, but did less people DIE OVERALL, or were they just killed a DIFFERANT WAY?

hey YOU are the one who said, its about SAVING LIVES, not me. so YOU opened that door.

and BTW thanks for the link, I found these two lines to be quite interesting

"Due to fundamental differences in how crime is recorded and categorized, it’s impossible to compute exactly what the British violent crime rate would be if it were calculated the way the FBI does it, but if we must compare the two, my best estimate‡ would be something like 776 violent crimes per 100,000 people. While this is still substantially higher than the rate in the United States, it’s nowhere near the 2,034 cited by Swann and the Mail."

"None of this disproves the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis (though the statistical evidence on whether gun ownership directly affects local crime rates, up or down, appears to be a wash), nor does it make any of the gun control proposals currently being debated any more attractive"

which in a nutshell says, while violent is not AS BAD as some reporter made it sound, it sill quite a bit worse than USA...

and he says pretty much what I said, factoring in gun control seems to be a wash, meaning no significant improvement nor worsening

which is basicly what I asked.

I didn't even mention anything about violent crime rates, just that so far all anyone has ever shown is crime using guns it DOWN, but NO ONE has ever shown anything that says violent crime or murders is down because of the gun controls...

BTW, YOU are the one who claims IT WORKS, not me, I never made any claim whatsoever, sooo its on you to PROVE YOUR CLAIM..

all I said was if you remove some element from an equation, then its OBVIOUS that data concerning THAT ELEMENT is going to fall sharply, but that does NOT PROVE you achieved your goal of SAVING LIVES, all it proves is they DID NOT GET SHOT

it tells me ALOT though that "MR CIVILIZED" has to resort to NAME CALLING

I have never called you a name ONCE EVER, yet I am the SAVAGE and you are the CIVILIZED ONE.....

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK

How dare you suggest I have called you a savage, I have only ever called you stupid, thick or ignorant.

That said, your point about the Mail is indeed bullshit, just like the Mails article itself. Do some research on the article the Mail lifted to base its claim on, and how that "Cough" Reasearch "cough" was carried out. Violent crimes in the UK are not the same thing as violent crimes in the US. We set a lower standard of what is and isnt a violent crime. Naturally enough your violent crime rate may seem lower but it isnt. You are using skewed figures. Murders in the UK also spiked when the case of long term serial killer Dr Howard Shipmans 300 victims were included in one go.

You want me to prove gun laws work, how about this difficult to follow concept, we have less people killed than you do in the US, as do all the other nations mentioned in my link.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Boy oh boy, are you really so stupid ? The thread is about gun control, so you want to say gun control doesnt work, since people still get killed. You cant even get that part either. Murder rates in the UK are falling and have done so after the most recent ban on hand guns. crime is also falling, including violent crime.

How does your theory explain the fact that homicide rates in the United States have fallen more than fifty percent since their peak in the 1980's, while during the same time period the number of legal guns on the street more than quadrupled? In 1986, only 8 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. By 1991, the number of "shall issue" states had doubled to 16. In 2001, 31 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. Five years later it was 37, and by 2013 a total of 42 states had adopted either "shall issue" or unrestricted carry.

K.

Read the link, or get a grown up to explain it to you. Dont ask BitYakin THOUGH as he clearly grasps very little. Your murder rate by firearms is still way higher than Europe or the US, whatever bullshit you spout about concealed carry. Your figures on gun ownership could be complete bollocks, unless you give a figure on ownership per person. IE. If I own five guns, and my five neighbours dont own any, it isnt correct to thin five out of six people own guns, is it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I have no idea if his numbers are correct, but at least I UNDERSTOOD what he WROTE, Mr enlightened one!

I don't know if his figures are 100% accurate, however I do know that they are pretty close.
And I agree, it does reflect a massive increase in the number of guns on the street at the same time that crime has dropped dramatically. This, as I have said before, may not "prove that more guns = less crime, but it does prove that more guns do not = more crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

How does your theory explain the fact that homicide rates in the United States have fallen more than fifty percent since their peak in the 1980's, while during the same time period the number of legal guns[ on the street more than quadrupled? In 1986, only 8 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. By 1991, the number of "shall issue" states had doubled to 16. In 2001, 31 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. Five years later it was 37, and by 2013 a total of 42 states had adopted either "shall issue" or unrestricted carry.

Your figures on gun ownership could be complete bollocks, unless you give a figure on ownership per person. IE. If I own five guns, and my five neighbours dont own any, it isnt correct to thin five out of six people own guns, is it.

Has it occurred to you that I didn't say anything about gun ownership rates?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have no idea if his numbers are correct, but at least I UNDERSTOOD what he WROTE, Mr enlightened one!

I don't know if his figures are 100% accurate, however I do know that they are pretty close.
And I agree, it does reflect a massive increase in the number of guns on the street at the same time that crime has dropped dramatically. This, as I have said before, may not "prove that more guns = less crime, but it does prove that more guns do not = more crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

How does your theory explain the fact that homicide rates in the United States have fallen more than fifty percent since their peak in the 1980's, while during the same time period the number of legal guns[ on the street more than quadrupled? In 1986, only 8 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. By 1991, the number of "shall issue" states had doubled to 16. In 2001, 31 states had "shall issue" concealed carry laws. Five years later it was 37, and by 2013 a total of 42 states had adopted either "shall issue" or unrestricted carry.

Your figures on gun ownership could be complete bollocks, unless you give a figure on ownership per person. IE. If I own five guns, and my five neighbours dont own any, it isnt correct to thin five out of six people own guns, is it.

Has it occurred to you that I didn't say anything about gun ownership rates?

Actually, YOU DID. How else do you define 'legal guns' as not being 'gun ownership'? Now if you are quite done with trying to....evade, dodge, and hide....please answer his viewpoint.