Howmanheyman 32826 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Not content with just shooting some cabbages, he then decides to bayonet it. Then shoot it as it's impaled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34913 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I didn't realise stirring the pot and making yourself look like an idiot were synonyms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Name calling, oh well that's novel. Refute the stats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30371 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 And this is why there will never be meaningful gun control reforms in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4375 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 If there are fewer violent crimes in the US then I assume only dismemberment counts as violent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34913 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Name calling, oh well that's novel. Refute the stats Whereas ignoratio elenchi is brand new I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 And this is why there will never be meaningful gun control reforms in the USA. It's way too late, the genie is out of the bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30371 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 So restricting further supplies of guns and ammunition wouldn't help alleviate the problem? Of course though you don't actually see that there is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 If there are fewer violent crimes in the US then I assume only dismemberment counts as violent. In the US it covers - Murder, Rape, Robbery and Aggravated Assault UK figure excludes murder and sexual offences. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/feb/13/violent-sexual-crime-statistics-england-wales-2013 Geezus it's even worse than I thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34913 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) The US murder rate is far higher than the UK's. Also, this is worth a read: http://rayrayallday.com/2013/01/11/the-difference-between-us-uk-violent-crime-rates-depends-on-definition-of-violent-crime/ Edited November 28, 2014 by Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 So restricting further supplies of guns and ammunition wouldn't help alleviate the problem? Of course though you don't actually see that there is a problem. Oh there's a problem, but it's peculiar to the US, in that almost anyone irrespective of background/record can buy a gun at Wallmart. Restricting it now would be worthless, there's so many guns out there, the only folks who would perhaps give up their guns are the folks who aren't the problem. If they were starting from say, where we are, that'd be a different matter. That said given the scale of the ownership, the effect of guns is somewhat restrained tbh. It's more dangerous to get regularly pissed or get pregnant, or god forbid, do gymnastics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 The US murder rate is far higher than the UK's. Also, this is worth a read: http://rayrayallday.com/2013/01/11/the-difference-between-us-uk-violent-crime-rates-depends-on-definition-of-violent-crime/ Four times as high I believe, of which 33% don't involve guns. It's what makes someone a murderer that is the problem not the murder weapon. Knife, gun or baseball bat the victim is just as dead. I will read that, haven't yet btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10779 Posted November 28, 2014 Author Share Posted November 28, 2014 A gun's sole purpose is to cause damage. Simply saying people die of other things is fucking stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34913 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Four times as high I believe, of which 33% don't involve guns. It's what makes someone a murderer that is the problem not the murder weapon. Knife, gun or baseball bat the victim is just as dead. I will read that, haven't yet btw. So, the murder rate is much higher and two thirds of murders in the US involve guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30371 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Oh there's a problem, but it's peculiar to the US, in that almost anyone irrespective of background/record can buy a gun at Wallmart. Restricting it now would be worthless, there's so many guns out there, the only folks who would perhaps give up their guns are the folks who aren't the problem. If they were starting from say, where we are, that'd be a different matter. That said given the scale of the ownership, the effect of guns is somewhat restrained tbh. It's more dangerous to get regularly pissed or get pregnant, or god forbid, do gymnastics The effects may take 100 years to become evident but doing nothing certainly isn't going to help the problem at any point. And your comparisons are absolutely meaningless. The point about guns is that they are used to kill and injure others, none of the activities you stated do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 A gun's sole purpose is to cause damage. Simply saying people die of other things is fucking stupid. Simply saying that by having guns definitively means massive murder rates is equally as silly. Look at Switzerland, loads of guns, bugger all murder rate. My friends and aquaintences, who are gun owners, use theirs to do pest control on their multi tens of acre farms (could be hundreds of acrestbh, have never been but have seen pics) and to go "shopping" for meat in season. One of my mates lives 100+ miles from the nearest mainstream store waaaay up north and way out in the sticks, hunt and eat meat it's been that way his whole life. Should he lose his right to have guns ??? Some of my Texan colleagues carry, erm because their Texan and that's what they do, no-one I know there has ever used theirs "in anger". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30371 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) My friends and aquaintences, who are gun owners, use theirs to do pest control on their multi tens of acre farms (could be hundreds of acrestbh, have never been but have seen pics) and to go "shopping" for meat in season. One of my mates lives 100+ miles from the nearest mainstream store waaaay up north and way out in the sticks, hunt and eat meat it's been that way his whole life. Should he lose his right to have guns ??? Do they hunt with pistols? Edited November 28, 2014 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34913 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 It's like logical fallacy bingo this Not content with introducing irrelevant conclusions, we now have the notion that suggesting any tighter form of gun control is equal to all forms of gun ownership for all uses being banned for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10779 Posted November 28, 2014 Author Share Posted November 28, 2014 Simply saying that by having guns definitively means massive murder rates is equally as silly. Look at Switzerland, loads of guns, bugger all murder rate. My friends and aquaintences, who are gun owners, use theirs to do pest control on their multi tens of acre farms (could be hundreds of acrestbh, have never been but have seen pics) and to go "shopping" for meat in season. One of my mates lives 100+ miles from the nearest mainstream store waaaay up north and way out in the sticks, hunt and eat meat it's been that way his whole life. Should he lose his right to have guns ??? Some of my Texan colleagues carry, erm because their Texan and that's what they do, no-one I know there has ever used theirs "in anger". So given that it's not the gun's fault for all these gun crimes, and it's the people, surely it's reasonable to keep those horrific people from sullying Gun's good name? By, oh I dunno, putting people through rigorous and stringent tests before permitting them the glory of owning a perfectly harmless firearm. Remember; Guns don't kill people, Americans do. Grow up and realise you don't care enough about the lives of children to put reasonable legislation ahead of your desire to own a gun. It's pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 So, the murder rate is much higher and two thirds of murders in the US involve guns? 4 times in total, yes, if you discount the non-firearm related murders it's about 3 times the murder rate of the UK attributable to guns as the murder weapon. Takes a "special" kind of person to kill I reckon. In simple terms, given the US has 5+ times the population I would expect that the numbers of people with the propensity, or lack of moral judgement, to be able to kill would be 5 times as much as here ergo a murder rate would (all things being equal) be 5 times what it is here, but it's not it's less than that. The fact that there are so many people prepared to kill is the problem, not their method of murder. The gun argument is just noise around that. In some utopian society, if you took all the guns out of the US would every one of those murders that happened with a gun, not happen by another means, some of them probably yes, but even if it was half of them you'd still have a murder rate approaching something like 3 times what it is here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34913 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) 4 times in total, yes, if you discount the non-firearm related murders it's about 3 times the murder rate of the UK attributable to guns as the murder weapon. Takes a "special" kind of person to kill I reckon. In simple terms, given the US has 5+ times the population I would expect that the numbers of people with the propensity, or lack of moral judgement, to be able to kill would be 5 times as much as here ergo a murder rate would (all things being equal) be 5 times what it is here, but it's not it's less than that. The fact that there are so many people prepared to kill is the problem, not their method of murder. The gun argument is just noise around that. In some utopian society, if you took all the guns out of the US would every one of those murders that happened with a gun, not happen by another means, some of them probably yes, but even if it was half of them you'd still have a murder rate approaching something like 3 times what it is here. It's per capita, you absolute fuckwit Edited November 28, 2014 by Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 So given that it's not the gun's fault for all these gun crimes, and it's the people, surely it's reasonable to keep those horrific people from sullying Gun's good name? By, oh I dunno, putting people through rigorous and stringent tests before permitting them the glory of owning a perfectly harmless firearm. Remember; Guns don't kill people, Americans do. Grow up and realise you don't care enough about the lives of children to put reasonable legislation ahead of your desire to own a gun. It's pathetic. Utter bollocks, I have no issue with reasonable legislation but it's way too fucking late. Where do I state I do not care about the lives of children ?? What makes someone kill by whatever means ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10779 Posted November 28, 2014 Author Share Posted November 28, 2014 Utter bollocks, I have no issue with reasonable legislation but it's way too fucking late. Where do I state I do not care about the lives of children ?? What makes someone kill by whatever means ?? Oh I'm sorry. I have misunderstood the rules, I thought we were allowed jut to make up shit about the opposition view? By the way it's pretty fucking simple. Less guns = less gun deaths. But you don't want to lose your guns because, reasons. Grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Worth pointing out that those figures don't include people killed with guns where it isn't deemed to be murder. If it's not deemed murder, it's not murder then is it, simple really. You're as likely to die in an accident at work in the US as you are to get murdered (by whatever means). If you took all the guns out of America, how many of the murders that are committed do you think that would stop ?? 100%, 50% 25% Personally I think the US would STILL have an inordinately skewed murder rate, that's the real root cause problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30371 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 How many lives does it have to save before it's worthwhile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now