I mean if a deal seems to good to be true it probably is.....does it make me a bad person if i think these people had it coming>
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Buying an iPad In a Parking Lot is a Bad Idea
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I did state not including suicides and ...
If any suicides should be added as a mayor downside of lots of guns. But i didnt add them because people would probably still try to commit suicide.
So? What does it matter wether they are stolen from shops or citizens? Those shops only have them to sell them to citizens .
All those stolem weapons go directly to criminals making it easier and cheaper to arm themselves .
BS, crime was higher then average and other studies show it higher then most .
And the usa already has the highest level of gun ownership, when will you admit that doest really work.
You mean you just ignore them, your own statistic show the usa higher then average WITH several times as much legal firearms then all the rest .
No where do you get that ?
^ "Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 19892009". Crime in the United States 2009. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation (USA). 2009-09. Retrieved 2011-02-15.
^ "Table 301. Homicide Trends: 1980 to 2005". Retrieved 20 November 2010.
And yes USA as one of the highest homocide rate of the western world and 8 in crime out of 60 . Thats clearly setting the uas with high crime even tough it has the highest gun ownership .
So? And yes UK also has high crime rates showing once more waht I claim: it DOESNT affect crime .
To cut short the post [sorry for that dont have more time perhaps later] but this is the important part: it doesnt work lots of guns to lower crime .
I didn't ignore anything. Let's get that straight.
Let's get another thing straight. I recanted, pages ago, that it lowers crime statistics as I agreed with the WPRI study that you have not read. At this point, I have been debating that crime IS NOT higher in the US. If there is an effect on crime, it cannot be proven with available data. Which is the same conclusion that WPRI found.
I am arguing this in the scope of guns because, while guns lowering crime cannot be proven, it can be proven that a prevalence of guns does not increase crime. And it has been proven. And I'll do it again. Please read it this time.
Crime is not limited to homicide alone but since you want to push your agenda, you ignore that. You're ignoring that crime in the US is lower than most other countries and the gap between the worst and the US is on the order of 14 times the amount of guns per 1000 people.
If you work the numbers you'll find that England has approximately 318,965 guns. America has 27,719,986 guns. So, a nation with FAR FEWER guns has more overall crime based on population. But that has nothing to do with anything because it's not homicides, right. I mean, guns can only be used to kill people, right. They're not useful in coercion.
And as for where I got my numbers, uh the first chart on the page that listed North America in the 12th position.
I'm sorry I missed that you discounted suicides this time. Fine. Just under 5%, according to your numbers. However, the anti-gun Organization Washington Cease Fire pegs it at 2%.
http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
Homicide: 11,624 / 39% of All Fatalities
Suicide: 16,750 / 57% of All Fatalities
Unintentional Death (Accidental): 649 / 2% of All Fatalities
So what can we assume? It varies between at least 2-5%. So an average is 3.5%.
But even that is irrelevant. Let's really show how ridiculous your numbers are, shall we? Your side always misses the forest for the trees.
Accidental gun deaths in your numbers (CDC, 2006) were 642. Accidental gun deaths from Cease Fire (CDC, 2004) were 649. Combined that's 1291.
The following numbers come from CDC, 2007.
In 2007 alone, 22,631 people died from FALLING. 29,846 people died from POISONING. 42,031 people died from CAR ACCIDENTS.
In 2007—and 2009 actually—assault was 15th on the list of leading causes of death. That's behind ALL of these things.
1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Septicemia
11. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson’s disease
Using this you could just as easily determine that more people WANT to die than are actually killed.
Accidental gun deaths, and even homicide are a drop in the bucket. But we don't install trampolines everywhere to catch falling people. We still allow people to drive. We still allow people to use chemicals.
So again, why should people who are proven to be 99.99% safe with guns, not be allowed to have them? Accidental deaths are EXTREMELY rare compared with most sources of death. And gun theft is still low. Even including theft from FFLs.
It doesn't matter whether they're stolen at all since most criminals obtain guns through straw purchases, and those that have been surveyed stated as much. And if guns were outlawed, they'd get them from the black market before they'd steal them.
And guns stolen from the dealers aren't stolen from me. That doesn't reduce my trustworthiness. It's not like if they said tomorrow that they're going to stop selling guns forever you'd then finally agree that it's OK for me to have one. You'd probably then argue that they'll come and steal it from me. You are being ridiculous.
As you have no facts, we're done. There is no convincing you because you will never be convinced no matter what data can prove to you. Don't bother getting back to me. My questions for you are rhetorical as you have neither facts nor answers.
Let's get another thing straight. I recanted, pages ago, that it lowers crime statistics as I agreed with the WPRI study that you have not read. At this point, I have been debating that crime IS NOT higher in the US. If there is an effect on crime, it cannot be proven with available data. Which is the same conclusion that WPRI found.
I am arguing this in the scope of guns because, while guns lowering crime cannot be proven, it can be proven that a prevalence of guns does not increase crime. And it has been proven. And I'll do it again. Please read it this time.
Crime is not limited to homicide alone but since you want to push your agenda, you ignore that. You're ignoring that crime in the US is lower than most other countries and the gap between the worst and the US is on the order of 14 times the amount of guns per 1000 people.
If you work the numbers you'll find that England has approximately 318,965 guns. America has 27,719,986 guns. So, a nation with FAR FEWER guns has more overall crime based on population. But that has nothing to do with anything because it's not homicides, right. I mean, guns can only be used to kill people, right. They're not useful in coercion.
And as for where I got my numbers, uh the first chart on the page that listed North America in the 12th position.
I'm sorry I missed that you discounted suicides this time. Fine. Just under 5%, according to your numbers. However, the anti-gun Organization Washington Cease Fire pegs it at 2%.
http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
Homicide: 11,624 / 39% of All Fatalities
Suicide: 16,750 / 57% of All Fatalities
Unintentional Death (Accidental): 649 / 2% of All Fatalities
So what can we assume? It varies between at least 2-5%. So an average is 3.5%.
But even that is irrelevant. Let's really show how ridiculous your numbers are, shall we? Your side always misses the forest for the trees.
Accidental gun deaths in your numbers (CDC, 2006) were 642. Accidental gun deaths from Cease Fire (CDC, 2004) were 649. Combined that's 1291.
The following numbers come from CDC, 2007.
In 2007 alone, 22,631 people died from FALLING. 29,846 people died from POISONING. 42,031 people died from CAR ACCIDENTS.
In 2007—and 2009 actually—assault was 15th on the list of leading causes of death. That's behind ALL of these things.
1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Septicemia
11. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson’s disease
Using this you could just as easily determine that more people WANT to die than are actually killed.
Accidental gun deaths, and even homicide are a drop in the bucket. But we don't install trampolines everywhere to catch falling people. We still allow people to drive. We still allow people to use chemicals.
So again, why should people who are proven to be 99.99% safe with guns, not be allowed to have them? Accidental deaths are EXTREMELY rare compared with most sources of death. And gun theft is still low. Even including theft from FFLs.
It doesn't matter whether they're stolen at all since most criminals obtain guns through straw purchases, and those that have been surveyed stated as much. And if guns were outlawed, they'd get them from the black market before they'd steal them.
And guns stolen from the dealers aren't stolen from me. That doesn't reduce my trustworthiness. It's not like if they said tomorrow that they're going to stop selling guns forever you'd then finally agree that it's OK for me to have one. You'd probably then argue that they'll come and steal it from me. You are being ridiculous.
As you have no facts, we're done. There is no convincing you because you will never be convinced no matter what data can prove to you. Don't bother getting back to me. My questions for you are rhetorical as you have neither facts nor answers.
Last edited:
Then dont start talking like that.
The right to bear arms is in an amendment that gives this right has a way to rotect from tyrany. Without that threath its pointless.
I am not simply sayin this, this is happening in real life daily.
Thats childish a gouvernement can rely on YOU protecting RPG's laying around your house at all times at all costs, thats just plain madness.
They dont know you they dont have any clu wether or not you are capable of doing this. This is madness giving such weapons to civilians. After all they cant even be reponsable with light firearms.
You didnt asnwer my question. To defend yourself? Against what? How many times do you think your life well be in danger and you need a gun?
As usual foolish arguments, buildings knives and whatever you come up with serves a purpose, a purpose that is largly beneficial for society. Guns arent the negatives dont outweight the positives and no matter how many silly comparisons you make you or how many times you want to ignore that this isnt going to change.
Numbers remain clear gun laws have no direct influence on crime, but they do have a direct influence on gun related accidents, gun acces for criminals and suicides with guns.
Why ban it? If you follow your logic it should be regulated but legal.
Why cares how easy it is for criminals to get guns? Well thats certainly isnt a concern of yours wich is VERY strange. How can you just shrug at that?
What would be best barely any criminals armed with firearms or all armed with firearms?
Again all BS.
None of my arguments are foolish, they are backed up with FACT—your statements are not.
The point that seems to escape you constantly, is that I cannot rely on the government no more than it can rely on me. Your OPINION is that we cannot be responsible with even with light firearms, but the simple FACT that 99.99% of CCW permit holders have not committed a crime with a gun betrays your opinion. And no matter how many times I state that, you will ignore it. Because you can't disprove it.
I DID answer your question. It's not my fault that you didn't realize it.
I have a gun to defend myself and my family from criminals, home invasions, robbery, carjacking, predatory animals, etc. As for how many times, AS I STATED, I only need to be put in a situation where I need a gun once. I have one life. Unless you can guarantee my safety, the only means available to me is a gun. I am not a big guy. A rather large man could punch me in the face and end my life. Is it really that hard for you to imagine? Perhaps if you never leave your house you might be safe. But, I actually go out into the world. I often have a very expensive camera with me, and I don't need it stolen by someone looking to score drugs.
And there was a time that I needed a gun. I was hiking in the Smokies before the Supreme Court had completely ruled against their gun ban. I didn't take my gun with me. I left it in the car because a sign—that I later found out was supposed to be taken down—told me to. I was tracked for over two miles by a cougar with nothing but a small knife to protect me. Had the cougar attacked me from the hill I would have been dead. All because I left the gun in the car and followed the law. Luckily I was with two other people, but I was alone when I first encountered the cougar on the ridge.
Again, I have said that numbers cannot prove that crime is lowered by the existence of guns—I even quoted what I said above—however, it can be proved, and I have proved it, that a prevalence of guns does not guarantee a prevalence of crime. If that were true, the UK wouldn't be #1.
Are you really that dense? I'm a Libertarian. My argument for pot is the same. WHY BAN IT INDEED!? It SHOULD be legal. That would lessen crime more than eliminating guns altogether.
You ARE really that dense, purposefully so I would imagine. I'm not saying who cares that criminals have access to guns. The difficulty is what is pointless. They are willing to do anything to get them—especially if they're stealing them from people left and right as you propose. In other words, no amount of difficulty is going to stop them.
Don't you get it? Difficulty and laws are not what stops them. If they want a gun, they'll get a gun. It might be harder, but that's NOT going to deter them.
The only thing that can deter them is the prospect that a citizen who they want to rob, kill, etc. might possibly shoot them instead. There are already laws against criminals having guns, there are laws against stealing, black market importation, etc. There are not enough police to even enforce the current laws. What makes you think that limiting the routes that normal citizens get guns is in any way going to stop criminals from obtaining guns?
Even if we stopped manufacturing guns altogether, criminals would still have guns. Unlike the UK, we are a large country with gigantic borders. There's no way we're stopping importation. Hell, our own government was guilty of giving guns to criminals that were used in crimes against us. So yeah, they're not stopping it.
EDIT: I FELT THE FOLLOWING WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE DISCUSSION. PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE.
There is something else I'd like to point out. You asked me how many times in my life I'd need a gun, or what I'd need one for. I did answer you, but a simpler answer is better.
It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I don't think I'll ever need the Third Amendment, Perhaps I'd need the Fourth on a traffic stop or something, the Fifth is doubtful, as are the Sixth and Seventh, as I don't expect to be wrongly accused of a crime or be brought in a civil suit that needs a jury. The Eighth should be likewise unnecessary to me. The Ninth and Tenth are very important however. Still, I don't NEED any of these Amendments to survive. But I do NEED these RIGHTS to be an American.
I don't think you get that. But it's very important. Those ten amendments are some of the most important writings in our history.
If you don't get that, it's you who is not American. I do have the suspicion that you aren't, but you don't list a location on your profile so I can't be sure. You called me out as if I weren't American because you confused one of the ideas behind the Second Amendment with the actual Second Amendment and tried to blame that on me. Perhaps you were poking fun or attempting to insult me. Or perhaps you don't know where Tampa, Florida is.
Either way, please don't attempt to explain the Second Amendment to me because you're incorrect. Tyranny is one of the reasons that the Second Amendment exists, however it is not the only one. For one thing, that right also existed in the English Bill of Rights. For another it was considered for security of a free State—as the actual text states—which consists of threats both foreign and domestic. It was also considered important for personal safety. All of these are relevant today, as they were before, and they shall forever be. When I say that they've tried to legislate it away, I mean the Second Amendment, not the reasons for its existence. So please, do not put words in my mouth or attribute your idea of the Second Amendment being irrelevant to me. It's simply not true, and the need for it is obvious, despite your insistence that it isn't.
Additionally, as our Constitution is a living document that is impacted by Supreme Court decisions, you should take note that the Heller case in 2008 cleared the ambiguity from the Second Amendment. One does not have to be a member of a militia to possess a gun. Self-defense is a valid purpose. And another interesting fact is that that is irrelevant for Floridians anyway. Simply by being an inhabitant of this state I belong to the State's militia, under Article X, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution#A10S02
Also saying, "then don't start talking like that," as you stated it makes no sense. Don't start talking like what? An American? Don't start talking like I don't understand the Second Amendment when you yourself confused one of the ideas behind the Amendment with the Amendment itself? Or perhaps you meant to say don't start talking like an idiot, even though it was a result of your foible.
None of my arguments are foolish, they are backed up with FACT—your statements are not.
The point that seems to escape you constantly, is that I cannot rely on the government no more than it can rely on me. Your OPINION is that we cannot be responsible with even with light firearms, but the simple FACT that 99.99% of CCW permit holders have not committed a crime with a gun betrays your opinion. And no matter how many times I state that, you will ignore it. Because you can't disprove it.
I DID answer your question. It's not my fault that you didn't realize it.
I have a gun to defend myself and my family from criminals, home invasions, robbery, carjacking, predatory animals, etc. As for how many times, AS I STATED, I only need to be put in a situation where I need a gun once. I have one life. Unless you can guarantee my safety, the only means available to me is a gun. I am not a big guy. A rather large man could punch me in the face and end my life. Is it really that hard for you to imagine? Perhaps if you never leave your house you might be safe. But, I actually go out into the world. I often have a very expensive camera with me, and I don't need it stolen by someone looking to score drugs.
And there was a time that I needed a gun. I was hiking in the Smokies before the Supreme Court had completely ruled against their gun ban. I didn't take my gun with me. I left it in the car because a sign—that I later found out was supposed to be taken down—told me to. I was tracked for over two miles by a cougar with nothing but a small knife to protect me. Had the cougar attacked me from the hill I would have been dead. All because I left the gun in the car and followed the law. Luckily I was with two other people, but I was alone when I first encountered the cougar on the ridge.
Again, I have said that numbers cannot prove that crime is lowered by the existence of guns—I even quoted what I said above—however, it can be proved, and I have proved it, that a prevalence of guns does not guarantee a prevalence of crime. If that were true, the UK wouldn't be #1.
Are you really that dense? I'm a Libertarian. My argument for pot is the same. WHY BAN IT INDEED!? It SHOULD be legal. That would lessen crime more than eliminating guns altogether.
You ARE really that dense, purposefully so I would imagine. I'm not saying who cares that criminals have access to guns. The difficulty is what is pointless. They are willing to do anything to get them—especially if they're stealing them from people left and right as you propose. In other words, no amount of difficulty is going to stop them.
Don't you get it? Difficulty and laws are not what stops them. If they want a gun, they'll get a gun. It might be harder, but that's NOT going to deter them.
The only thing that can deter them is the prospect that a citizen who they want to rob, kill, etc. might possibly shoot them instead. There are already laws against criminals having guns, there are laws against stealing, black market importation, etc. There are not enough police to even enforce the current laws. What makes you think that limiting the routes that normal citizens get guns is in any way going to stop criminals from obtaining guns?
Even if we stopped manufacturing guns altogether, criminals would still have guns. Unlike the UK, we are a large country with gigantic borders. There's no way we're stopping importation. Hell, our own government was guilty of giving guns to criminals that were used in crimes against us. So yeah, they're not stopping it.
EDIT: I FELT THE FOLLOWING WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE DISCUSSION. PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE.
There is something else I'd like to point out. You asked me how many times in my life I'd need a gun, or what I'd need one for. I did answer you, but a simpler answer is better.
It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I don't think I'll ever need the Third Amendment, Perhaps I'd need the Fourth on a traffic stop or something, the Fifth is doubtful, as are the Sixth and Seventh, as I don't expect to be wrongly accused of a crime or be brought in a civil suit that needs a jury. The Eighth should be likewise unnecessary to me. The Ninth and Tenth are very important however. Still, I don't NEED any of these Amendments to survive. But I do NEED these RIGHTS to be an American.
I don't think you get that. But it's very important. Those ten amendments are some of the most important writings in our history.
If you don't get that, it's you who is not American. I do have the suspicion that you aren't, but you don't list a location on your profile so I can't be sure. You called me out as if I weren't American because you confused one of the ideas behind the Second Amendment with the actual Second Amendment and tried to blame that on me. Perhaps you were poking fun or attempting to insult me. Or perhaps you don't know where Tampa, Florida is.
Either way, please don't attempt to explain the Second Amendment to me because you're incorrect. Tyranny is one of the reasons that the Second Amendment exists, however it is not the only one. For one thing, that right also existed in the English Bill of Rights. For another it was considered for security of a free State—as the actual text states—which consists of threats both foreign and domestic. It was also considered important for personal safety. All of these are relevant today, as they were before, and they shall forever be. When I say that they've tried to legislate it away, I mean the Second Amendment, not the reasons for its existence. So please, do not put words in my mouth or attribute your idea of the Second Amendment being irrelevant to me. It's simply not true, and the need for it is obvious, despite your insistence that it isn't.
Additionally, as our Constitution is a living document that is impacted by Supreme Court decisions, you should take note that the Heller case in 2008 cleared the ambiguity from the Second Amendment. One does not have to be a member of a militia to possess a gun. Self-defense is a valid purpose. And another interesting fact is that that is irrelevant for Floridians anyway. Simply by being an inhabitant of this state I belong to the State's militia, under Article X, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution#A10S02
Also saying, "then don't start talking like that," as you stated it makes no sense. Don't start talking like what? An American? Don't start talking like I don't understand the Second Amendment when you yourself confused one of the ideas behind the Amendment with the Amendment itself? Or perhaps you meant to say don't start talking like an idiot, even though it was a result of your foible.
Last edited: