New York Massacre

[comic boy]

You already have one link posted on this thread from the frog, if you dont like that then just
google ' gun death statistics for Europe ' and take your pick.

[b.k. barunt]

Isn't Switzerland a pretty safe place? I heard that all citizens there are required to keep arms and a healthy big stock of ammunition. But lets be honest. If even one person in there had been armed, provided that they were not hot first, the impact of this would have been much diminished.

Now, two scenes: guns are legal everywhere, and everyone can have them, and guns are completely illegal and can't even be imported, they can only be owned by the police.

A person gets really angry and wants to kill someone.

First scene: the person has a gun and is therefore capable of killing someone with a pull of a trigger, then calm down and regret it late.
Second scene: the person does not have a gun and is therefore limited in his methods of killing the person. Also less chance they can kill them since most other methods require physical strength. (50% chance they are weaker)

It doesn't take a whole lot of strength to cut someone's throat or gut them with a knife, and women do it all the time. Down here in Louisiana, we seem to prefer knives according to the death statistics. I myself have always carried one since my father gave me my first at 6 years old (with a warning of dire consequences should i ever even threaten someone with it), and have never pulled it out of my pocket in a fight unless the other person pulled a weapon. That includes fights that i lost, and one rather badly (i looked like Rocky after fighting Mr. T) that i could have ended easily by using my knife.

My point is that a person with no self control will kill or maim with whatever is at hand - it doesn't take a gun to do it. The problem, as i've said before, is that the punishments rendered for such are impotent.


Honibaz

[Juan_Bottom]

I myself have always carried one since my father gave me my first at 6 years old (with a warning of dire consequences should i ever even threaten someone with it), and have never pulled it out of my pocket in a fight unless the other person pulled a weapon. That includes fights that i lost, and one rather badly (i looked like Rocky after fighting Mr. T) that i could have ended easily by using my knife.

Wow... ditto....

[Iliad]

Isn't Switzerland a pretty safe place? I heard that all citizens there are required to keep arms and a healthy big stock of ammunition. But lets be honest. If even one person in there had been armed, provided that they were not hot first, the impact of this would have been much diminished.

Now, two scenes: guns are legal everywhere, and everyone can have them, and guns are completely illegal and can't even be imported, they can only be owned by the police.

A person gets really angry and wants to kill someone.

First scene: the person has a gun and is therefore capable of killing someone with a pull of a trigger, then calm down and regret it late.
Second scene: the person does not have a gun and is therefore limited in his methods of killing the person. Also less chance they can kill them since most other methods require physical strength. (50% chance they are weaker)

It doesn't take a whole lot of strength to cut someone's throat or gut them with a knife, and women do it all the time. Down here in Louisiana, we seem to prefer knives according to the death statistics. I myself have always carried one since my father gave me my first at 6 years old (with a warning of dire consequences should i ever even threaten someone with it), and have never pulled it out of my pocket in a fight unless the other person pulled a weapon. That includes fights that i lost, and one rather badly (i looked like Rocky after fighting Mr. T) that i could have ended easily by using my knife.

My point is that a person with no self control will kill or maim with whatever is at hand - it doesn't take a gun to do it. The problem, as i've said before, is that the punishments rendered for such are impotent.


Honibaz

Yet it is harder with a knife. Sure if guns are illegal people could try using other weapons. But if a maniac decides to f*ck it, like so many in America have, and goes to a crowd with which weapon do you think he will kill more people? A gun or a knife?

[b.k. barunt]

And you suppose that if guns were illegal, such maniacs would be stymied? Brilliant!
If i were a maniac (been alleged once or twice) and wanted a gun, and they were illegal to the average (or maniacal) citizen, i'd walk into a donut shop, stab a cop, take his gun . . . do the math junior.


Honibaz

[Iliad]

And you suppose that if guns were illegal, such maniacs would be stymied? Brilliant!
If i were a maniac (been alleged once or twice) and wanted a gun, and they were illegal to the average (or maniacal) citizen, i'd walk into a donut shop, stab a cop, take his gun . . . do the math junior.


Honibaz

Yes, let's make the jobs of maniacs easier. They can obtain guns in much harder and rarer circumstances, so let all of them have guns instead only of a few.

Hell if we're using that kind of logic why not give the atomic bomb to everyone? I mean if a country wants to kill people it can invade without an atomic bomb and still kill people. And countries without atomic bombs can just invade countries with atomic bombs, and steal those, so there's no point not giving them atomic bombs.

Hurrah for world peace!

But I get it, I get it. If all parties have sufficient force then that will be a deterrent as each party would not want to engage in violence and then World War 1 would never start! Oh wait...

[Falkomagno]

Isn't Switzerland a pretty safe place? I heard that all citizens there are required to keep arms and a healthy big stock of ammunition. But lets be honest. If even one person in there had been armed, provided that they were not hot first, the impact of this would have been much diminished.

Now, two scenes: guns are legal everywhere, and everyone can have them, and guns are completely illegal and can't even be imported, they can only be owned by the police.

A person gets really angry and wants to kill someone.

First scene: the person has a gun and is therefore capable of killing someone with a pull of a trigger, then calm down and regret it late.
Second scene: the person does not have a gun and is therefore limited in his methods of killing the person. Also less chance they can kill them since most other methods require physical strength. (50% chance they are weaker)

It doesn't take a whole lot of strength to cut someone's throat or gut them with a knife, and women do it all the time. Down here in Louisiana, we seem to prefer knives according to the death statistics. I myself have always carried one since my father gave me my first at 6 years old (with a warning of dire consequences should i ever even threaten someone with it), and have never pulled it out of my pocket in a fight unless the other person pulled a weapon. That includes fights that i lost, and one rather badly (i looked like Rocky after fighting Mr. T) that i could have ended easily by using my knife.

My point is that a person with no self control will kill or maim with whatever is at hand - it doesn't take a gun to do it. The problem, as i've said before, is that the punishments rendered for such are impotent.


Honibaz

This is so so stupid.....the fact that anybody can kill no matter if have a gun or not...is not a valid reason to support a mass possession of guns....it's like....every goberment in the world with nuclear bombs...what's does matter, if with nuclear bombs or not any country could kill people......it's so poor argument.....obviously if everybody has guns....the kill ratio will increase dramatically....and that's not the idea.....that fake feeling of "secure" is sad for the mankind and just cover that violent people who thinks that killing it's a choice

[GabonX]

Why is it that Gabon always runs away once he has been proved wrong

I've never been "proved" wrong here. It takes way to much time to address the same things over and over again.

This is the LAST time I want to address Joefrogs links. If you don't read the response this time it's your loss because I've gone through this before.

Here are some links that prove Gabon is just plain wrong, he has ignored them in the past though Note they were not cherrypicked but randomnly lifted from the first page of google.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 32069.html

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4210558.stm

The first link makes claims but does not provide any sources or actual figures. It really doesn't provide any kind of perspective. I'm guessing that the third link is another such article but it's impossible to tell as it's cut off.

The second link is really the only credible looking website and it is not "independent,unbiased data" despite Joecoolfrog's criticism that my data was not.
Anyhow, the first thing you see when you click the link is a large graph. It looks impressive but if you take the time to enter the web addresses at the bottom of the picture that it claims are it's sources
(and you have to type them in because they are not clickable links) you find that they do not work.
http://www.ryerson.ca/safer-net/issues/ ... eaths.html
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/ievs/data.php
Niether of these links work. This, along with the heavy and flagrant bias of the site, leads me to question the authenticity of any nonverifiable information or sources this website provides.

Let's look at the data which is verifiable. We see that the United States has a higher gun homicide rate. This looks bad, but this statistic is not the end of the story. The overall violent crime rate is lower in the United States than in Great Britain. Violent crime is actually falling in the United States while it is rising in Britain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

Every state which has adopted right to carry laws has seen a drop in violent crime. Recognizing a man's right to carry a handgun for self defense has a universal positive affect in every real world scenario:
http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm

If you go down further on the page of Joe's second link you come to a section entitled "Gun Crime in Great Britain." Click the link for England and Wales, then click the link where it states "Data from 1989 onwards are now included in the GCN Archive"
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm
http://www.gun-control-network.org/A018.htm

Despite these links being found on an anti gun website they show that gun crime has been increasing in the UK. Hand guns were banned in the UK in 1997 yet handgun crime has actualy increased since the ban!

There were 2636 handgun crimes committed in 1997-1998, the year that the handgun ban went into affect

The most hand gun crimes committed in a single year since then was in 2001-2002 with 5874 crimes committed just 4 years after the ban went into affect

Every year since 2000 the UK has seen more handgun crimes committed than any year in the 90's accept for when you compare 1993 (the year in the 90's with the most crimes, 4273) and 2000 (the year in this decade with the least crimes, 4109)

Take the time to look at the statistics on this site, because even though it has an anti gun agenda, the numbers provided there actually back what I've been saying to a greater extent than what I have time to get into here

[GabonX]

I think that the single idea of kill somebody it's frightening...no matter if you have a right to buy a gun or not.....something is wrong with you as a nation...because that killing spreads seems to me as a mental disease...as a social degeneration....there is no single reason to kill anybody...no matter if you lost your job, if you've been stolen, no matter what...always the life have to be preserved....it's antisocial behavior...so sad for the mankind

I hold that the opposite, extreme pacifism, is a mental disorder which threatens to undermine our ideals of society. Do a little bit of reading on Neville Chamberlain and "Peace for our time" if you're curious to see what maybe the greatest historic example of the failure of pacifism in the real world.

Weakness invites exploitation.

[Falkomagno]

I think that the single idea of kill somebody it's frightening...no matter if you have a right to buy a gun or not.....something is wrong with you as a nation...because that killing spreads seems to me as a mental disease...as a social degeneration....there is no single reason to kill anybody...no matter if you lost your job, if you've been stolen, no matter what...always the life have to be preserved....it's antisocial behavior...so sad for the mankind

I hold that the opposite, extreme pacifism, if a mental disorder which threatens to undermine our ideals of society. Do a little bit of reading on Neville Chamberlain and "Peace for our time" if you're curious to see what maybe the greatest historic example of the failure of pacifism in the real world.

Weakness invites exploitation.

That's completly wrong.
1."our ideals of society" is not an axiom, and you are falling in the mistake of thinking that the force use to defend those "ideals" are lawful...but it doesn't necessary, because those "ideals" can be totally wrong, for example...a society without inmigration, a society without diversity...a society without individual freedoms....

2.If there is examples where the pacifism was a failure...i'm totally sure it could be..but...it doesn't matter....I see pacifism most as an ideal than a real fact in the world...it's an ideal state of a high level society...that we actually don't have

3.You are confusing pacifism with weakness...it's a common mistake and it's because you think that brutal solutions, or the use of the phisical force is most active that proposing another solutions...it's a savage simplification of a (with all due respect) a savage mind...In fact...I seriously doubt that a real peace can be achieved without a strong monopoly of the armament

[GabonX]

That's completly wrong.
1."our ideals of society" is not an axiom, and you are falling in the mistake of thinking that the force use to defend those "ideals" are lawful...but it doesn't necessary, because those "ideals" can be totally wrong, for example...a society without inmigration, a society without diversity...a society without individual freedoms....

Our ideals of society: Democracy, religious freedom, the right to free speech, gender and racial equality (in the true sense the terms), the right to own property, and the freedom to pursue our own ideals of happiness so long as they do not directly harm other people

These are the kinds of things I was talking about.

2.If there is examples where the pacifism was a failure...i'm totally sure it could be..but...it doesn't matter....I see pacifism most as an ideal than a real fact in the world...it's an ideal state of a high level society...that we actually don't have

This was the mindset of the party of Neville Chamberlain prior to WW2. Their lack of practical forsight of what German rearmament meant led to the deaths of millions.

There is a great wealth of knowledge in the story of WW2 in regards to Chamberlain's "peace for our time," and the ignored foresight of Churchill.

3.You are confusing pacifism with weakness...it's a common mistake and it's because you think that brutal solutions, or the use of the phisical force is most active that proposing another solutions...it's a savage simplification of a (with all due respect) a savage mind...In fact...I seriously doubt that a real peace can be achieved without a strong monopoly of the armament

The world is a jungle, it always has been and is still today.

Make no mistake about it, pacifism in the face of tyranny and violence is weakness.

[comic boy]

So when did the discussion change from gun deaths to gun violence...oh yes around the time that Gabon couldnt find the statistics he needed

Gun death statistics - difficult to disguise as a death is a death and figures can only be split into homicide,accident,suicide.

Crime / Violence statistics - Can be manipulated very easily to suit any agenda you wish because the definitions change all the time and no 2 countries present their data in the same way.

[GabonX]

So when did the discussion change from gun deaths to gun violence...oh yes around the time that Gabon couldnt find the statistics he needed

Gun death statistics - difficult to disguise as a death is a death and figures can only be split into homicide,accident,suicide.

Crime / Violence statistics - Can be manipulated very easily to suit any agenda you wish because the definitions change all the time and no 2 countries present their data in the same way.

Gun crime and gun death are very closely related, it's silly to say that we should look at one without the other. The point is that despite the ban, guns are still readily available and the frequency of their use is on the rise now that it is only criminals that have them.

I haven't manipulated any data either, rather I posted the statistics which are provided on an anti gun website that prove that gun violence is increasing in the UK despite the 97 handgun ban.

I also advised you to read the figures for yourself and had you have done so you would have seen that the average number of homocides is also increasing despite the 97 handgun ban.

1990-1999
60,55,56,74,66,70,49,59,54,49,62
Average homocides commited per year: 59.45

2000-2008
73,97,81,68,78,50,59,53
Average homocide per year: 69.88

In addition to the overall rise in violent crime, the homocide rate is rising this decade as well despite the hand gun ban. Those numbers are from the "gun control network," the site that Joecoolfrog provided:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm
http://www.gun-control-network.org/A018.htm


P.S. Who decided that gun deaths would be the only thing which would be discussed here? It's fine if that's the case because the facts support my argument either way, but I see the post by comic boy as a perfect example of how people here like to dodge facts and change the issue to something else.

[b.k. barunt]

Falco, that is a very very scary avatar. It gave me bad dreams last night.


Honibaz

[Falkomagno]

Our ideals of society: Democracy...
These are the kinds of things I was talking about.

Democracy it's not an unique and ideal system of government...it can be debated.

This was the mindset of the party of Neville Chamberlain prior to WW2. Their lack of practical forsight of what German rearmament meant led to the deaths of millions.

No...the deaths of millions was because the war, not because the legacy of Chamberlain. I mean, maybe (or maybe not) the appeasement due Chamberlain contributed to the nazi expansionism, but this it's just could be a palliative. The real problem it's the war, the armamentist race, no matter if were nazis, japaneses, americans or russians....that's the problem and that's cause deaths and sorrow to the mankind

...., pacifism in the face of tyranny and violence is weakness.

And you propose that the tyranny and violence has to be faced with violence and tyranny.......so wise


I think, Gabon, that at this point, your way of thinking it's reaching a clear point, i mean, at a point were it's not wrong or right itself. But the true is that your real position it's some like:

Instead of teaching irrelevant science, advanced mathematics, literature, and other things which do not result in applicable life skills children should be learning important things like the proper function and maintenance of firearms.

That, let me tell you, is a radical position that led to a society with killing frenzy that we are seeing

I think that was Stephen King who said that the mass killer it's so tipically american as the apple pie....


PD. I Hope that my new avatar doesn't scare you BK

[GabonX]

Appeasement and pacifism enabled Hitler to build the greatest army in the world. Pacifism almost led to absolute Nazi rule in Europe. Standing up to the Nazi threat as Britian did under Churchill was not an act of tyranny, in fact it was quite the opposite.

If a people does not maintain the physical ability to assert their will, for right or for wrong, then they will eventually have the terms of their existance, or lack thereof, dictated to them.

Peace is not a choice than any nation can hope to make by itself. If any entity chooses to pursue a path of conflict then there will be war, and it is the victor of this war which will decide the fate of the parties involved. That is of course unless another entity chooses to challenge the victor.

This is the nature of things as it is today and always has been.

P.S. Teaching children to use firearms may seem like a radical position to some, but many American children are taught how to use them. As a matter of public safety children should be taught the proper function and practice of firearms and their usage.

Around the world teaching children to use guns is quite common, not just in third world countries, but in the rivals of the United States. In Soviet Russia and many of the sattelite states no child made it through school without learning to strip and use a kalashnikov rifle like my step mother had to.

[Snorri1234]

Around the world teaching children to use guns is quite common, not just in third world countries,

Teaching children how to shoot shit is not only for countries where young children are pulled into wars, you can do it right here too!

but in the rivals of the United States.

WE GOT TO KEEP UP WITH THESE OTHER NATIONS TEACHING KIDS TO MURDER!

In Soviet Russia and many of the sattelite states no child made it through school without learning to strip and use a kalashnikov rifle like my step mother had to.

This is a good thing. In my country a child couldn't graduate middle school without having killed someone.

[Neoteny]

=

FUCKING AWESOME!!!

Amirite?

[jonesthecurl]

Of course, in Wales they use the pupil who's bottom of the class for target practise. Sure, the class gets smaller each term, but you end up with some awesome shots.

[GabonX]

=

FUCKING AWESOME!!!

Amirite?

That kid could probably run circles around your kids.

It's not the prettiest thing in the world and THAT is not something to aspire to, but teaching children fire arm safety would save lives. Teaching them the proper function and use would save more lives.

[captain.crazy]

=

FUCKING AWESOME!!!

Amirite?

That kid could probably run circles around your kids.

It's not the prettiest thing in the world and THAT is not something to aspire to, but teaching children fire arm safety would save lives. Teaching them the proper function and use would save more lives.

Not to mention that teaching them to disembowel invaders is pretty cool too!

[b.k. barunt]

Our ideals of society: Democracy...
These are the kinds of things I was talking about.

Democracy it's not an unique and ideal system of government...it can be debated.

This was the mindset of the party of Neville Chamberlain prior to WW2. Their lack of practical forsight of what German rearmament meant led to the deaths of millions.

No...the deaths of millions was because the war, not because the legacy of Chamberlain. I mean, maybe (or maybe not) the appeasement due Chamberlain contributed to the nazi expansionism, but this it's just could be a palliative. The real problem it's the war, the armamentist race, no matter if were nazis, japaneses, americans or russians....that's the problem and that's cause deaths and sorrow to the mankind

I can see both sides on this. If Chamberlain had taken decisive action at the time it may have saved some lives, but as Falco implied, the war was inevitable.

...., pacifism in the face of tyranny and violence is weakness.

And you propose that the tyranny and violence has to be faced with violence and tyranny.......so wise

No, not with violence and tyranny, but sometimes yes, with violence. If i'm walking down the street and i see 2 or 3 people beating up on one, i have to step in, and if words won't correct the situation, then yes i have to resort to violence. I applaud your ideals Falco, but there are times when they just don't work, and i will not sacrifice another person's safety and well being to refuse to exert myself in violent fashion if that is necessary. Do you suggest that police refrain from violently apprehending violent criminals? If you had the opportunity to stop that maniac from killing those people by hitting him in the head with a brick would you have refrained from such to further your pacifistic ideals, thereby allowing those people to die?

I think, Gabon, that at this point, your way of thinking it's reaching a clear point, i mean, at a point were it's not wrong or right itself. But the true is that your real position it's some like:

Instead of teaching irrelevant science, advanced mathematics, literature, and other things which do not result in applicable life skills children should be learning important things like the proper function and maintenance of firearms.

That's where you screw the pooch Gabon. That's where you shift from a viable argument to proposing a nightmare existence devoid of the things that i would fight to protect. All are not meant to be warriors. I taught my son martial arts from the time he was four to the time he was eleven. I also taught him how to play the piano from the same age. By the time he was eleven i saw that his gifts were not those of a warrior but of an artist, and i pushed him in that direction instead. By your narrowmindedness, you would impose your way on everyone and deny the very things that are worth fighting for.

That, let me tell you, is a radical position that led to a society with killing frenzy that we are seeing

I think that was Stephen King who said that the mass killer it's so tipically american as the apple pie....


PD. I Hope that my new avatar doesn't scare you BK

Much better, and i'm rather looking forward to my dreams tonight.


Honibaz

[GabonX]

People are twisting what I'm saying regarding the education of children. It seems to me that with the availability of guns in this country and the frequency of accidents which occur regarding children, that it would make sense for schools to teach basic firearm safety. The class is akin to drivers ed.

I don't even think that it's essential that a child even fires a gun, but they should learn how a clip fits into a pistol or rifle, how to load and unload a revolver, basic tubular rifle and shotgun designs, how to line up sights, where not to point a gun, and perhaps most importantly, how to identify the safety of a weapon and whether or not it is loaded.

There isn't really a nead for them to handle live ammunition.

Due to the frequency of fire arm accidents regarding children and my belief that they still belong in a healthy society, I see this as a public health issue.

[Snorri1234]

People are twisting what I'm saying regarding the education of children. It seems to me that with the availability of guns in this country and the frequency of accidents which occur regarding children, that it would make sense for schools to teach basic firearm safety. The class is akin to drivers ed.

I don't even think that it's essential that a child even fires a gun, but they should learn how a clip fits into a pistol or rifle, how to load and unload a revolver, basic tubular rifle and shotgun designs, how to line up sights, where not to point a gun, and perhaps most importantly, how to identify the safety of a weapon and whether or not it is loaded.

There isn't really a nead for them to handle live ammunition.

Then you shouldn't have said it had something to do with keeping up with other nations. Sure, teaching kids gun-safety is usefull allthough I think parents themselves should do it. (Or like, if you buy a gun you get a mandatory safety-training for your kids.)

[jonesthecurl]

When I was a kid (and this is not a spoof post), I could dismantle and reassemble my toy guns in the dark. My dad was a bit weird.