Tragedies continue because liberals lack common sense & don't comprehend security

[JoeB131]

[

My point...which you didn't seem to grasp...is that eliminating guns doesn't really save lives and I base that on what's taken place in locales that HAVE basically eliminated them from the hands of the general public, like Russia and Great Britain. .

Number of gun murders in the UK 2010- 27
Total number of homicides 2009 - 794


Number committed with guns in the USA - 2010: 11,078
Number of gun murders - 2010: 16,259

Eliminating guns DID save lives in the United Kingdom.

 

[JoeB131]

[
My post was intended for Joe Biden's quote in red above. He says he wants police officers to have guns but he doesn't want me to have one. Except that he has NO idea who I am or what I do

Actually, I think I have you pegged. You are some underacheiver doing a thankless job who blames affrimative action or feminism or some such for your lack of progress in life.

I doubt you'd pass the psych test to be a cop. Your co-workers are probably a little afraid of you.

A little projection there, I see.

No, not really. I'm making fine progress in my life. Capitalism sucks, but I'm doing okay given my reluctance to engage in real high-grade douchebaggery.

 

[Brain357]

The problem isn't that people are buying Bazookas and anti-tank weapons, Brain...it's that a certain segment of the population that is vehemently opposed to guns period, would like to use what happened in Conn. as a "pry bar" to rid themselves of the the 2nd Amendment.

If you can honestly show me that eliminating guns will eliminate violence than we might begin to have a basis to start talking about doing just that...but the truth is...getting rid of guns in the hands of ordinary law abiding Americans (because let's face it...if you aren't law abiding then why would you CARE what laws are enacted?) will not end violence. It might change it substantially. If you're a thug and you intend to rob people then it's obvious that they're not having the means to defend themselves with a gun is going to make it much easier for you to use a knife or a club to take from them what you want. If I'm a 250 pound twenty something mugger than I'm having a field day with senior citizens and the ladies. Like they're REALLY going to be able to defend themselves against me with anything BUT a gun?

So we're going to get rid of "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines? That's going to stop crazy people from killing kids? Why do I think that a nut case with a pump shotgun is going to just as lethal as a nut case with an assault rifle! Maybe because I shoot shotguns and have a good idea what they can do? So do you ban shot guns as well? Where is the line drawn once we start down this slippery slope?

By no means do I think it's going to stop people completely, but it might save a few lives. And frankly each one is extremely valuable to me at least.

So now assume your unarmed and in a group of say 50 people. Are you honestly going to tell me that you don't think more people would have a chance of escape if the attacker had a shotgun vs an AR15 with a 50 round magazine? Or if the attacker had a 6 shot revolver vs a semi-auto with 20 round magazines? Both the shotgun and revolver are slower to reload unless you have these magical abilities that go against physics like many of the gun people here claim. Or even suppose your armed with a compact semi-auto. If the attacker has smaller magazines your not going to be so outgunned, nor will the police be for that matter.

My point...which you didn't seem to grasp...is that eliminating guns doesn't really save lives and I base that on what's taken place in locales that HAVE basically eliminated them from the hands of the general public, like Russia and Great Britain. If your contention that getting rid of guns will save lives were valid then murders in both places should be down drastically and yet they are spiking. Why? Because evil people exist no matter what legislation you pass and taking guns out of the hands of the public has made it easier for thugs to prey on the weak with little more than their fists, a knife or a blunt instrument. I'm sorry if the reality of that doesn't jive with your rather naive notion that taking guns away from law abiding folks will somehow make them safer. That's simply not the case.

As for what a pump shotgun would do to a crowded room of people as compared to an assault rifle? I'll give you a hint...neither is going to be a pretty scene.

The Police response time to just about any attack of this manner is going to be too slow for THEM to out gun the bad guy. The way it usually plays out is that the rampage takes place and then the Police finally show up...at which point the mass murderer commits suicide with his own weapon. I'm sorry but the Police are NOT going to save you or your loved ones in this situation. They'll put an end to it with their eventual arrival but it's almost always too late.

Even though I wasn't discussing eliminating guns I see you went right to the old standard. You mentioned high capacity magazines so I told you how eliminating them could save lives. I'm pretty sure you agree with me otherwise you would have answered my questions. Didn't Cheney shoot some old guy with a shotgun and he lived? hmmm... I've yet to hear of an instance where someone needed a high capacity magazine for defense.

Everybody should agree with stronger background checks and a limit on magazine capacity. This would save lives and everyone gets to keep their gun. For some reason some people think having more and bigger guns is more important than saving lives. Some of these same people oddly enough call themselves pro life. I don't get it.

Now if you want to talk about if less guns make a country safer I think we should look at the intentional homicide rates per capita. So the numbers I find per 100,000 people are US 4.8, Japan .4, UK 1.2, Australia 1, and Germany .8. We seem to be doing something wrong. Strangely the other countries all have strict gun laws. I don't think these countries are in danger of tyranny either.

 

[Oldstyle]

[

My point...which you didn't seem to grasp...is that eliminating guns doesn't really save lives and I base that on what's taken place in locales that HAVE basically eliminated them from the hands of the general public, like Russia and Great Britain. .

Number of gun murders in the UK 2010- 27
Total number of homicides 2009 - 794


Number committed with guns in the USA - 2010: 11,078
Number of gun murders - 2010: 16,259

Eliminating guns DID save lives in the United Kingdom.

You want to try that again, Joe?

First of all, you've got two different years cited in your UK example...2010 and 2009...which tells me that someone's cherry picking their numbers...and secondly you gave a completely different set of stats for the US. What happened to the total # of homicides?

Did you care to explain why Finland (which has the highest percentage of gun ownership by private citizens) has one of the lowest murder rates in Europe? If your contention is that it is the availability of guns that causes murder rates to go up then it would follow that people in Finland should be shooting each other right and left...yet they don't!

Eliminating guns may very well drop the number of people killed by guns but the fact is it doesn't stop murder by other means as is shown by the huge numbers of people who are murdered in Russia by things other than guns.

What this boils down to is a rather simple question...

Do you want to solve the problem of violence or do you want to do something that makes you "feel" like you're doing something but won't really change a thing? You can pass a law that makes sawed off shotguns illegal because people who commit crimes with shotguns love to cut them down to make it easier to hide them. That will make you FEEL like you've done something to address the problem but in the Columbine shootings both shooters did in fact cut down the barrels of their shotguns. Did the law that was passed making that illegal stop their behavior? Obviously not! Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE INTENT ON COMMITTING MURDER!!! It's simple common sense that someone who is willing to break the law on something as major as THAT isn't going to think twice about violating the law you've made yourself feel good about passing.

 

[FA_Q2]

By no means do I think it's going to stop people completely, but it might save a few lives. And frankly each one is extremely valuable to me at least.

So now assume your unarmed and in a group of say 50 people. Are you honestly going to tell me that you don't think more people would have a chance of escape if the attacker had a shotgun vs an AR15 with a 50 round magazine? Or if the attacker had a 6 shot revolver vs a semi-auto with 20 round magazines? Both the shotgun and revolver are slower to reload unless you have these magical abilities that go against physics like many of the gun people here claim. Or even suppose your armed with a compact semi-auto. If the attacker has smaller magazines your not going to be so outgunned, nor will the police be for that matter.

My point...which you didn't seem to grasp...is that eliminating guns doesn't really save lives and I base that on what's taken place in locales that HAVE basically eliminated them from the hands of the general public, like Russia and Great Britain. If your contention that getting rid of guns will save lives were valid then murders in both places should be down drastically and yet they are spiking. Why? Because evil people exist no matter what legislation you pass and taking guns out of the hands of the public has made it easier for thugs to prey on the weak with little more than their fists, a knife or a blunt instrument. I'm sorry if the reality of that doesn't jive with your rather naive notion that taking guns away from law abiding folks will somehow make them safer. That's simply not the case.

As for what a pump shotgun would do to a crowded room of people as compared to an assault rifle? I'll give you a hint...neither is going to be a pretty scene.

The Police response time to just about any attack of this manner is going to be too slow for THEM to out gun the bad guy. The way it usually plays out is that the rampage takes place and then the Police finally show up...at which point the mass murderer commits suicide with his own weapon. I'm sorry but the Police are NOT going to save you or your loved ones in this situation. They'll put an end to it with their eventual arrival but it's almost always too late.

Even though I wasn't discussing eliminating guns I see you went right to the old standard. You mentioned high capacity magazines so I told you how eliminating them could save lives. I'm pretty sure you agree with me otherwise you would have answered my questions. Didn't Cheney shoot some old guy with a shotgun and he lived? hmmm... I've yet to hear of an instance where someone needed a high capacity magazine for defense.

Everybody should agree with stronger background checks and a limit on magazine capacity. This would save lives and everyone gets to keep their gun. For some reason some people think having more and bigger guns is more important than saving lives. Some of these same people oddly enough call themselves pro life. I don't get it.

Now if you want to talk about if less guns make a country safer I think we should look at the intentional homicide rates per capita. So the numbers I find per 100,000 people are US 4.8, Japan .4, UK 1.2, Australia 1, and Germany .8. We seem to be doing something wrong. Strangely the other countries all have strict gun laws. I don't think these countries are in danger of tyranny either.

I have answered this line of thought over two dozen times here so I am going to reuse an ols post that I made on the subject a few months ago. The data covers various areas, laws and even includes right to carry laws as well. We see a trend that universally sticks with all gun control: flat or increasing homicide rates. The measure really does not matter as criminals don’t care. They don’t follow the law and even when they do, it is a complete false assumption that what Lanza did with the AR is somehow harder or less likely had he walked in with a few .45’s and ten round clips. In reality, that would have changed NOTHING.

Everyone wants to go back to clip size without even realizing that reloads are so fast that clip size is utterly meaningless and there are LARGER concerns like caliber that are totally ignored. Simply put, one roadblock is meaningless in the sea of options and there is simply no way of preventing criminals or crazies from acquiring a means of killing.

Anyway, here is some REAL info on gun control in other locations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, here we go again.

For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

 

[FA_Q2]

[

My point...which you didn't seem to grasp...is that eliminating guns doesn't really save lives and I base that on what's taken place in locales that HAVE basically eliminated them from the hands of the general public, like Russia and Great Britain. .

Number of gun murders in the UK 2010- 27
Total number of homicides 2009 - 794


Number committed with guns in the USA - 2010: 11,078
Number of gun murders - 2010: 16,259

Eliminating guns DID save lives in the United Kingdom.

You have been shown that this is blatantly false before. Why are you continuing to claim that which is outright false?

 

[Oldstyle]

"Even though I wasn't discussing eliminating guns I see you went right to the old standard. You mentioned high capacity magazines so I told you how eliminating them could save lives. I'm pretty sure you agree with me otherwise you would have answered my questions. Didn't Cheney shoot some old guy with a shotgun and he lived? hmmm... I've yet to hear of an instance where someone needed a high capacity magazine for defense.
Everybody should agree with stronger background checks and a limit on magazine capacity. This would save lives and everyone gets to keep their gun. For some reason some people think having more and bigger guns is more important than saving lives. Some of these same people oddly enough call themselves pro life. I don't get it.
Now if you want to talk about if less guns make a country safer I think we should look at the intentional homicide rates per capita. So the numbers I find per 100,000 people are US 4.8, Japan .4, UK 1.2, Australia 1, and Germany .8. We seem to be doing something wrong. Strangely the other countries all have strict gun laws. I don't think these countries are in danger of tyranny either." Brain


By definition a homicide is "intentional". I'm not following your point.

I notice that you don't include Russia or Finland in your examination of homicide rates per capita. Why is that? Because they don't match up with your preconceived notion of what strict gun control laws DO? Finland has an extremely low homicide rate and yet they have more guns per capita than any other European nation. Russia on the other hand has banned possession of firearms by private citizens for decades and yet THEIR homicide rate is through the roof. Why is that, Brain?

 

[Oldstyle]

And Cheney shot the guy with birdshot. If you knew anything about weapons...which you are showing quite obviously you DON'T...you would understand that someone intent on committing the murder of humans would not be loading their shotgun with birdshot.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for the "need" for a magazine carrying multiple rounds? Once again it's common sense that a group of thugs is going to be more hesitant to accost someone who has pulled a handgun with a large capacity magazine than they would someone who's weapon was a single shot piece. The same reason that Police carry automatics with larger magazines holds true for private citizens who carry weapons for self defense. I could carry a one shot dueling pistol but doing so would be idiotic. I'm going to carry a weapon that allows me the best chance to defend myself in the worst case scenario.

 

[P@triot]

[

My point...which you didn't seem to grasp...is that eliminating guns doesn't really save lives and I base that on what's taken place in locales that HAVE basically eliminated them from the hands of the general public, like Russia and Great Britain. .

Number of gun murders in the UK 2010- 27
Total number of homicides 2009 - 794


Number committed with guns in the USA - 2010: 11,078
Number of gun murders - 2010: 16,259

Eliminating guns DID save lives in the United Kingdom.

You have been shown that this is blatantly false before. Why are you continuing to claim that which is outright false?

Because that's what communists do - spread propaganda in hopes of further their radical agenda.

 

[MikeK]

There is a clear and unmistakable reason for all the recent screwball shooting episodes. The reason the media hasn't revealed it is to do so would kill the goose that lays the golden advertising egg -- which is the pharmaceutical industry.

The truth is contained in this video: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOJzZjK4XHk]Psychiatric Drugs and Mass Shootings ?? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P@triot]

I've yet to hear of an instance where someone needed a high capacity magazine for defense.

• Reginald Deny desperately needed a high capacity magazine for defense when he was pulled from his truck by a mob and brutally beaten into a coma during the Rodney King riots.
  
  
• All citizens not involved in the rioting needed a high capacity magazine for defense during the Rodney King riots.
  
  
• All citizens not involved in the rioting needed a high capacity magazine for defense during the Watts riots.
  
  
• All citizens not involved in the looting/rioting/raping needed a high capacity magazine for defense during Hurricane Katrina.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Are you telling me you've seriously never heard of these?

 

[Brain357]

"Even though I wasn't discussing eliminating guns I see you went right to the old standard. You mentioned high capacity magazines so I told you how eliminating them could save lives. I'm pretty sure you agree with me otherwise you would have answered my questions. Didn't Cheney shoot some old guy with a shotgun and he lived? hmmm... I've yet to hear of an instance where someone needed a high capacity magazine for defense.
Everybody should agree with stronger background checks and a limit on magazine capacity. This would save lives and everyone gets to keep their gun. For some reason some people think having more and bigger guns is more important than saving lives. Some of these same people oddly enough call themselves pro life. I don't get it.
Now if you want to talk about if less guns make a country safer I think we should look at the intentional homicide rates per capita. So the numbers I find per 100,000 people are US 4.8, Japan .4, UK 1.2, Australia 1, and Germany .8. We seem to be doing something wrong. Strangely the other countries all have strict gun laws. I don't think these countries are in danger of tyranny either." Brain


By definition a homicide is "intentional". I'm not following your point.

I notice that you don't include Russia or Finland in your examination of homicide rates per capita. Why is that? Because they don't match up with your preconceived notion of what strict gun control laws DO? Finland has an extremely low homicide rate and yet they have more guns per capita than any other European nation. Russia on the other hand has banned possession of firearms by private citizens for decades and yet THEIR homicide rate is through the roof. Why is that, Brain?

I tried to include countries I thought were equally as stable polically and economically. Funny that you bring up Finland because the number I find is 2.2 which of course is worse than the 4 countries I mentioned. Given it's low population density I would say thats a fairly high number compared to other countries. Now the 3 other Scandinavian countries have more gun laws and their numbers are Denmark .9, Norway .6, and Sweden 1. Hmmm... I'm glad you brought up Finland. Russia I didn't bring up because I don't feel they are very economically or politically stable. The same reason I don't bring up Mexico.

 

[Brain357]

I've yet to hear of an instance where someone needed a high capacity magazine for defense.

• Reginald Deny desperately needed a high capacity magazine for defense when he was pulled from his truck by a mob and brutally beaten into a coma during the Rodney King riots.
  
  
• All citizens not involved in the rioting needed a high capacity magazine for defense during the Rodney King riots.
  
  
• All citizens not involved in the rioting needed a high capacity magazine for defense during the Watts riots.
  
  
• All citizens not involved in the looting/rioting/raping needed a high capacity magazine for defense during Hurricane Katrina.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Are you telling me you've seriously never heard of these?

Of course I have heard of this. And my first response is that your EXTREMELY unlikely to find yourself in these situations. Secondly, I don't remember many of the rioters using guns, so I'm pretty sure anyone with a gun would be left alone. High capacity not necessary. But do bring up some specific stories during this incident where someone had to fire 10 or more shots for defense. I would like to hear them.

 

[Brain357]

As for the "need" for a magazine carrying multiple rounds? Once again it's common sense that a group of thugs is going to be more hesitant to accost someone who has pulled a handgun with a large capacity magazine than they would someone who's weapon was a single shot piece. The same reason that Police carry automatics with larger magazines holds true for private citizens who carry weapons for self defense. I could carry a one shot dueling pistol but doing so would be idiotic. I'm going to carry a weapon that allows me the best chance to defend myself in the worst case scenario.

Do share specific stories of someone needing to fire 10 plus shots in self defense. I've not heard of any. I'm not sure where your living, but I've not been attacked by huge gangs of people lately. I do however have many examples of an attacker using high capacity magazines to kill innocent people very quickly. Are the pro gunners so scared of hypotheticals that they don't want to save real lives? That is quite sad.

 

[Brain357]

There is a clear and unmistakable reason for all the recent screwball shooting episodes. The reason the media hasn't revealed it is to do so would kill the goose that lays the golden advertising egg -- which is the pharmaceutical industry.

The truth is contained in this video: Psychiatric Drugs and Mass Shootings ?? - YouTube

I'm very disappointed neither our politicians or the media are looking into this more. I hope this is something we can all agree on.

 

[Brain357]

My point...which you didn't seem to grasp...is that eliminating guns doesn't really save lives and I base that on what's taken place in locales that HAVE basically eliminated them from the hands of the general public, like Russia and Great Britain. If your contention that getting rid of guns will save lives were valid then murders in both places should be down drastically and yet they are spiking. Why? Because evil people exist no matter what legislation you pass and taking guns out of the hands of the public has made it easier for thugs to prey on the weak with little more than their fists, a knife or a blunt instrument. I'm sorry if the reality of that doesn't jive with your rather naive notion that taking guns away from law abiding folks will somehow make them safer. That's simply not the case.

As for what a pump shotgun would do to a crowded room of people as compared to an assault rifle? I'll give you a hint...neither is going to be a pretty scene.

The Police response time to just about any attack of this manner is going to be too slow for THEM to out gun the bad guy. The way it usually plays out is that the rampage takes place and then the Police finally show up...at which point the mass murderer commits suicide with his own weapon. I'm sorry but the Police are NOT going to save you or your loved ones in this situation. They'll put an end to it with their eventual arrival but it's almost always too late.

Even though I wasn't discussing eliminating guns I see you went right to the old standard. You mentioned high capacity magazines so I told you how eliminating them could save lives. I'm pretty sure you agree with me otherwise you would have answered my questions. Didn't Cheney shoot some old guy with a shotgun and he lived? hmmm... I've yet to hear of an instance where someone needed a high capacity magazine for defense.

Everybody should agree with stronger background checks and a limit on magazine capacity. This would save lives and everyone gets to keep their gun. For some reason some people think having more and bigger guns is more important than saving lives. Some of these same people oddly enough call themselves pro life. I don't get it.

Now if you want to talk about if less guns make a country safer I think we should look at the intentional homicide rates per capita. So the numbers I find per 100,000 people are US 4.8, Japan .4, UK 1.2, Australia 1, and Germany .8. We seem to be doing something wrong. Strangely the other countries all have strict gun laws. I don't think these countries are in danger of tyranny either.

I have answered this line of thought over two dozen times here so I am going to reuse an ols post that I made on the subject a few months ago. The data covers various areas, laws and even includes right to carry laws as well. We see a trend that universally sticks with all gun control: flat or increasing homicide rates. The measure really does not matter as criminals don’t care. They don’t follow the law and even when they do, it is a complete false assumption that what Lanza did with the AR is somehow harder or less likely had he walked in with a few .45’s and ten round clips. In reality, that would have changed NOTHING.

Everyone wants to go back to clip size without even realizing that reloads are so fast that clip size is utterly meaningless and there are LARGER concerns like caliber that are totally ignored. Simply put, one roadblock is meaningless in the sea of options and there is simply no way of preventing criminals or crazies from acquiring a means of killing.

Anyway, here is some REAL info on gun control in other locations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, here we go again.

For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:




Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

Well I do appreciate some real debate. Many here seem to think that name calling is some kind of debate. My first question is what the heck is a clip? I've heard this reloading is so fast that magazine size is meaningless argument a lot. Well if I'm in a crowd getting shot at by someone I would much prefer he has to reload often. Maybe he has to lower his eyes for a second to find the next magazine on his person. Maybe he even drops a magazine. Maybe he just fumbles a little at entering the next one. Any of this might just save a life. And lets be realistic, these people aren't usually very well trained. All the above are very possible. Even just ejecting one magazine to load another is slower than just pulling a trigger. And if the pro gunners really believed this argument they wouldn't be so against limiting the capacity of magazines now would they? I'm pretty sure they don't believe their own argument.

I agree the homicide rate is the best to be used. Though I personally would rather be attacked by a knife than a gun. Can't really do a mass knifing. But that said it is the best statistic to use for our purposes.

I do agree that international numbers aren't perfect, but they are incredibly important. If one country seems to be doing a better job there is a lot to be learned. It seems like a lot of countries with strict gun laws also have low homicide rates.

So now we have all your city stats which are certainly interesting and I guess we can learn from them. There is a bit of a problem with city laws however. Chicago has strict laws, but you can just go to the next town and buy a gun. There is no border patrol, so city laws will always be much less effective than a countries laws.

So Washington DC. According to your graph it looks like 1976 there is a handgun ban. Looks like the rate stays pretty even, goes up a little, then 12 years later increases dramatically. Then around 1993 it comes down dramatically. 2006 the ban is struck down, rate goes up a little and then goes back down. I fail to see how this is very clear. The rate is downward trending for like 12 years before the ban is struck down. Given the long periods of time after the ban and before with dramatic shifts I'd say something else was at work.

Chicago. I mostly agree with you that it didn't really make the city more safe. But again a cities law is pretty limited when you can just go to the next town. 2007 does look better than much of the pre gun law rates however.

England. Based on your charts it doesn't appear the gun laws lowered the homicide rate. If you look at a similar chart for Australia however it does appear to be trending down after stricter gun laws. I guess there is something here to be learned.

Florida and Texas. Both these were trending down before the right to carry laws. So pretty inconclusive to me.

Not sure where all this got us. The U.S. has the most guns but not the lowest homicide rate of countries. I find our rate embarassing and don't think more guns is the answer. Has it been the answer for any other country? If having the most guns should make us safer, why do we not have the lowest homicide rates?

If there were no guns we could save at least the 600 or so people a year killed in accidental gun deaths.

 

[P@triot]

I've yet to hear of an instance where someone needed a high capacity magazine for defense.

• Reginald Deny desperately needed a high capacity magazine for defense when he was pulled from his truck by a mob and brutally beaten into a coma during the Rodney King riots.
  
  
• All citizens not involved in the rioting needed a high capacity magazine for defense during the Rodney King riots.
  
  
• All citizens not involved in the rioting needed a high capacity magazine for defense during the Watts riots.
  
  
• All citizens not involved in the looting/rioting/raping needed a high capacity magazine for defense during Hurricane Katrina.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Are you telling me you've seriously never heard of these?

Of course I have heard of this. And my first response is that your EXTREMELY unlikely to find yourself in these situations. Secondly, I don't remember many of the rioters using guns, so I'm pretty sure anyone with a gun would be left alone. High capacity not necessary. But do bring up some specific stories during this incident where someone had to fire 10 or more shots for defense. I would like to hear them.

Well then you're not very familiar with mob/riot situations. If you think anyone with a gun would be "left alone" - you are sadly mistaken (and I sincerely hope you never find yourself in that situation).

Now, as far as "unlikely to find yourself" in that situation - that is purely insane. I'm sure Reginald Deny would have said the same (very ignorant) thing before his incident. Nobody knows what situation they are going to find themselves in, in the next hour. How in the hell can you predict that it will be "extremely unlikely"? Now you're just making shit up.

The fact is - you prepare because you have no clue what tomorrow brings. You may NEVER fire a weapon in self-defense your entire life. You may also need 200 rounds to defend your life.

By the way, besides those major news events I mentioned which everyone knows about, how about this link below to a story about Byrd & Mellanie Billings who were killed in a home invasion. I'll bet $1,000 you and any liberals on this board have NEVER heard of this story. This couple were murdered by SEVEN (count them, seven) intruders in a coordinated attack lead by a former members of U.S. special forces. The couple was wealthy (and bless their hearts, they took in special needs children - having something like 12 or 16 in the home at the time this happened) and each person in the seven member (note I said member and NOT man - there was a woman involved) was assigned a specific job to knock out their secuirty system, communications, etc.

Now, if you have 7 people invading your home to kill you (once of which is former special forces), can you honestly say 8 or 10 bullets is enough to protect you? Don't lie. The answer for anyone who knows a shred about firearms and/or self-defense is an astounding NO. Even if you hit with 100% accuracy (which would NEVER happen under any scenario), rarely will one 9mm round (or .22, or .40, etc.) take someone down.

You can keep coming up with excuses all day (first you said you'd never heard of a scenario, now you say you have heard of them after I posted them but you claim they are "unlikely") but at the end of the day, there there are shit loads of real world examples where people needed many rounds to protect themselves. The Billings didn't have them, and that is why they are dead today. Had they been prepared with a rifle filled with 30 rounds plus spare magazines, it's very likely they would be alive and well today. Enjoy the stories - as much as you can enjoy reading about the horrific home invasion and murder of innocent people:

The Mansion Murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings ? Introduction ? Crime Library on truTV.com

Onswipe

Florida Couple Byrd and Melanie Billings Death, Safe Contained Little Value

Byrd and Melanie Billings Murder: Teen Pleads in Fla. Slaying of Wealthy, Adoptive Parents - Crimesider - CBS News

 

[Oldstyle]

"Even though I wasn't discussing eliminating guns I see you went right to the old standard. You mentioned high capacity magazines so I told you how eliminating them could save lives. I'm pretty sure you agree with me otherwise you would have answered my questions. Didn't Cheney shoot some old guy with a shotgun and he lived? hmmm... I've yet to hear of an instance where someone needed a high capacity magazine for defense.
Everybody should agree with stronger background checks and a limit on magazine capacity. This would save lives and everyone gets to keep their gun. For some reason some people think having more and bigger guns is more important than saving lives. Some of these same people oddly enough call themselves pro life. I don't get it.
Now if you want to talk about if less guns make a country safer I think we should look at the intentional homicide rates per capita. So the numbers I find per 100,000 people are US 4.8, Japan .4, UK 1.2, Australia 1, and Germany .8. We seem to be doing something wrong. Strangely the other countries all have strict gun laws. I don't think these countries are in danger of tyranny either." Brain


By definition a homicide is "intentional". I'm not following your point.

I notice that you don't include Russia or Finland in your examination of homicide rates per capita. Why is that? Because they don't match up with your preconceived notion of what strict gun control laws DO? Finland has an extremely low homicide rate and yet they have more guns per capita than any other European nation. Russia on the other hand has banned possession of firearms by private citizens for decades and yet THEIR homicide rate is through the roof. Why is that, Brain?

I tried to include countries I thought were equally as stable polically and economically. Funny that you bring up Finland because the number I find is 2.2 which of course is worse than the 4 countries I mentioned. Given it's low population density I would say thats a fairly high number compared to other countries. Now the 3 other Scandinavian countries have more gun laws and their numbers are Denmark .9, Norway .6, and Sweden 1. Hmmm... I'm glad you brought up Finland. Russia I didn't bring up because I don't feel they are very economically or politically stable. The same reason I don't bring up Mexico.

I hate to break this to you, Brain but we're really not that much more economically "stable" than Russia is at this point. They are in fact rated as "stable" by the three credit rating agencies while we are rated as "negative". To be quite honest with you I'm not sure what our present AA+ rating is based on because from where I'm sitting our outlook is rather grim. At our current rate of spending we'll bury ourselves in debt within the next twenty years. Unless we can wean ourselves off of the dependency kick we're on now this country is going down the toilet.

 

[JoeB131]

[

My point...which you didn't seem to grasp...is that eliminating guns doesn't really save lives and I base that on what's taken place in locales that HAVE basically eliminated them from the hands of the general public, like Russia and Great Britain. .

Number of gun murders in the UK 2010- 27
Total number of homicides 2009 - 794


Number committed with guns in the USA - 2010: 11,078
Number of gun murders - 2010: 16,259

Eliminating guns DID save lives in the United Kingdom.

You have been shown that this is blatantly false before. Why are you continuing to claim that which is outright false?

I have been shown nothing of the sort. Other countries limit gun ownership, they are just as free as we are and they don't have the obscene murder rates we have.

Because they don't have an NRA telling us that we totally need Nancy Lanza out there with miltiary grade weapons in case they need to fight the Government or the Zombie Apocolypse.