Private Gun ownership Save Lives.

[martybegan]

Here is an example of having guns not ending well.

No charges in ATF agent's friendly-fire death after LI pharmacy shooting - m.NYPOST.com

Considering the two shooters were both police officers, and thus as agents of the state would probably not be covered under most gun control laws, your point is not really made.

Read the article next time.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here is an example of having guns not ending well.

No charges in ATF agent's friendly-fire death after LI pharmacy shooting - m.NYPOST.com

Considering the two shooters were both police officers, and thus as agents of the state would probably not be covered under most gun control laws, your point is not really made.

Read the article next time.

Cops shoot plenty of innocent people.

 

[Brain357]

Here is an example of having guns not ending well.

No charges in ATF agent's friendly-fire death after LI pharmacy shooting - m.NYPOST.com

Considering the two shooters were both police officers, and thus as agents of the state would probably not be covered under most gun control laws, your point is not really made.

Read the article next time.

Nobody was on duty. My point was that more good guys with guns does not always make people safer. I think that point was made.

 

[M14 Shooter]

32,000 gun deaths a year in the US. By 2015, death by firearms will exceed deaths from auto accidents. A person is 43 times as likely to be killed by their own gun in their home than by a someone breaking in.

And were guns not so readily available, we would not be having the crimes stats that we do concerning guns.

It doesnt matter how many times you repeat these lies - they are still lies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Having a gun in the home can save your life. But it's a lot more likely to put a bullet in you or a member of your family than a robber.

1: It is impossible for you to show that this is true
2: Even if true, you offer an invalid metric.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If more guns=more security, we would have the fewest gun deaths in the history of the planet since our society, by far, has the most guns in the hands of its citizens.

Compare the number of guns in the US to the number of gun-related homicides.
Do the same for any other country you care to name.
If and when you muster the courage to do so, post your findings.

 

[martybegan]

Here is an example of having guns not ending well.

No charges in ATF agent's friendly-fire death after LI pharmacy shooting - m.NYPOST.com

Considering the two shooters were both police officers, and thus as agents of the state would probably not be covered under most gun control laws, your point is not really made.

Read the article next time.

Nobody was on duty. My point was that more good guys with guns does not always make people safer. I think that point was made.

The thread is about private ownership of firearms by persons outside of the employ of the state. Your link is about two agents of the state even if of duty shooting another agent of the state by accident.

Still not applicable to the discussion.

 

[Saigon]

If more guns=more security, we would have the fewest gun deaths in the history of the planet since our society, by far, has the most guns in the hands of its citizens.

Compare the number of guns in the US to the number of gun-related homicides.
Do the same for any other country you care to name.
If and when you muster the courage to do so, post your findings.

Was this the information you were thinking of?

Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country

If and when you muster the courage to do so, tell us how this shows guns making people safe in the USA.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If more guns=more security, we would have the fewest gun deaths in the history of the planet since our society, by far, has the most guns in the hands of its citizens.

Compare the number of guns in the US to the number of gun-related homicides.
Do the same for any other country you care to name.
If and when you muster the courage to do so, post your findings.

Was this the information you were thinking of?

As your information does not mention in any way the number of guns in each country - no.
But then you knew that.
That is, you failed to meaningfully address the challenge, and did so on purpose.

 

[martybegan]

Compare the number of guns in the US to the number of gun-related homicides.
Do the same for any other country you care to name.
If and when you muster the courage to do so, post your findings.

Was this the information you were thinking of?

As your information does not mention in any way the number of guns in each country - no.
But then you knew that.
That is, you failed to meaningfully address the challenge, and did so on purpose.

Also by isolating only gun related deaths, one makes the assumption that if the criminal did not have a gun, no death would occur, instead of reality where the criminal will find some other way to kill the person.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Was this the information you were thinking of?

As your information does not mention in any way the number of guns in each country - no.
But then you knew that.
That is, you failed to meaningfully address the challenge, and did so on purpose.

Also by isolating only gun related deaths, one makes the assumption that if the criminal did not have a gun, no death would occur, instead of reality where the criminal will find some other way to kill the person.

Unquestionably, as evidenced by the fact that the non-gun murder rate in the US is equal to or higher than the total murder rate in most of Western Europe.

The point remains - if one wants to argue more guns = more gun-related homicide, then the only way to prove this is to relate the number of gun-related homicides to the number of guns.

Saigon knows she cannot do this and, instead, chose to fail.

 

[Saigon]

M Shooter -

The point remains - if one wants to argue more guns = more gun-related homicide, then the only way to prove this is to relate the number of gun-related homicides to the number of guns.

Why not relate it to the number of people?

We both know why, of course, but I'm curious to watch yourself dance around the point.

 

[Saigon]

Also by isolating only gun related deaths, one makes the assumption that if the criminal did not have a gun, no death would occur, instead of reality where the criminal will find some other way to kill the person.

And yet we know statistically that this does not occur.

In fact, you can check this yourself now, by finding a list of mass murders in your state, and running through the list to find how many do not inolve guns. Feel free to check other countries as well.

What you will find is that mass murders involve guns in 90%+ of cases.

Remove the guns - reduce the mass murders.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M Shooter -

The point remains - if one wants to argue more guns = more gun-related homicide, then the only way to prove this is to relate the number of gun-related homicides to the number of guns.

Why not relate it to the number of people?

If the argument is more guns = more gun-related homicide, then the number of guns, not the number of people, is the relevant figure.

You either do not understand this, or you do understand this and simply choose to ignore it as you know you cannot show that more guns = more gun related homicide.

Either way, you fail.

 

[martybegan]

Also by isolating only gun related deaths, one makes the assumption that if the criminal did not have a gun, no death would occur, instead of reality where the criminal will find some other way to kill the person.

And yet we know statistically that this does not occur.

In fact, you can check this yourself now, by finding a list of mass murders in your state, and running through the list to find how many do not inolve guns. Feel free to check other countries as well.

What you will find is that mass murders involve guns in 90%+ of cases.

Remove the guns - reduce the mass murders.

We also know that mass murders are a small percentage of overall crimes, and thus focusing on them ignores the main criminal acts being performed. Its like working on the plumbing to a sink while the titanic is sinking.

 

[Saigon]

M Shooter -

The point remains - if one wants to argue more guns = more gun-related homicide, then the only way to prove this is to relate the number of gun-related homicides to the number of guns.

Why not relate it to the number of people?

If the argument is more guns = more gun-related homicide, then the number of guns, not the number of people, is the relevant figure.

You either do not understand this, or you do understand this and simply choose to ignore it as you know you cannot show that more guns = more gun related homicide.

Either way, you fail.

But of course we know that more guns = more homicide. It's a fact, statistically.

The reason we do not consider the number of guns is obvious - a person owning 25 guns is not 25 times more likely to commit murder than a person owning 1 gun, and a person owning 25 guns is unlikely to kill 25 people, one with each gun.

Hence, those statistics are of less value than considering the homocides per person, or the homicides per gun owner.

In both cases, the US has easily the worst record in the developed world.

 

[Saigon]

We also know that mass murders are a small percentage of overall crimes, and thus focusing on them ignores the main criminal acts being performed. Its like working on the plumbing to a sink while the titanic is sinking.

True, but we both know that countries without a significant number of guns have less total murders than the US does.

When we compare gun-related and non-gun related homicides, what we find is that the US rate of gun-related homicide is ten times that of many EU countries, while the non gun-related homicide rates is "only" four times that of the EU countries.

This tells us that some murderers will find another way to kill, as you suggest. But most will not.

If the US reduced the number of guns, the number of homicides would drop proportionally, as would suicides.

 

[martybegan]

We also know that mass murders are a small percentage of overall crimes, and thus focusing on them ignores the main criminal acts being performed. Its like working on the plumbing to a sink while the titanic is sinking.

True, but we both know that countries without a significant number of guns have less total murders than the US does.

When we compare gun-related and non-gun related homicides, what we find is that the US rate of gun-related homicide is ten times that of many EU countries, while the non gun-related homicide rates is "only" four times that of the EU countries.

This tells us that some murderers will find another way to kill, as you suggest. But most will not.

If the US reduced the number of guns, the number of homicides would drop proportionally, as would suicides.

Thats an assumption, and a big one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M Shooter -

Why not relate it to the number of people?

If the argument is more guns = more gun-related homicide, then the number of guns, not the number of people, is the relevant figure.

You either do not understand this, or you do understand this and simply choose to ignore it as you know you cannot show that more guns = more gun related homicide.

Either way, you fail.

But of course we know that more guns = more homicide. It's a fact, statistically.

This is a lie.
You cannot show this to be true and you know it.

Disagree?
Compare the ratio of gun-related homicides as related to the number of guns in the US to that of 10 other western countries.

Youi will not do this because you know that if you do you will prove yourself wrong.

You have failed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We also know that mass murders are a small percentage of overall crimes, and thus focusing on them ignores the main criminal acts being performed. Its like working on the plumbing to a sink while the titanic is sinking.

True, but we both know that countries without a significant number of guns have less total murders than the US does.

When we compare gun-related and non-gun related homicides, what we find is that the US rate of gun-related homicide is ten times that of many EU countries, while the non gun-related homicide rates is "only" four times that of the EU countries.

This tells us that some murderers will find another way to kill, as you suggest. But most will not.

If the US reduced the number of guns, the number of homicides would drop proportionally, as would suicides.

Thats an assumption, and a big one.

No.
It is a blatant lie.