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

[Brain357]

• 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

Your mob/riot situations don't tell us all that much because they are hypothetical. Who's to say Reginald wouldn't have gone for his gun just to get shot down by several rioters? That wouldn't exactly be saving him.

Well that is an interesting story, but quite unique now isn't it? Something tells me the victims could have had machine guns and the result would have been the same given the attacker was a former special forces and there were 7 of them. Now how many innocent people can I list that have been killed by semi-autos with high capacity magazines? Not really a ratio that goes in your favor at all. I guess you say protect the few and hell with the many?

You have one real story where it might have saved the victims. Lets see some more. One where it actually saved the victims would mean a lot more. Otherwise your just saying well it might have helped. Meanwhile we have MANY REAL examples of them being used for evil.

 

[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.

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.

I guess you gave up on Finland. Good choice.

Well I disagree with you on Russia, but you have to agree that there are many factors other than gun laws that would effect the numbers. Still it seems like ALL the countries with very low homicide rates have strict gun laws. That would seem like something to learn from rather than recreating the wheel. You'd probably throw gas on a fire too I suppose?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

I guess you gave up on Finland. Good choice.

Well I disagree with you on Russia, but you have to agree that there are many factors other than gun laws that would effect the numbers. Still it seems like ALL the countries with very low homicide rates have strict gun laws. That would seem like something to learn from rather than recreating the wheel. You'd probably throw gas on a fire too I suppose?

Why would I give up on Finland? It proves the point that I'm making.

European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

Russia, which had a gun ownership rate of 4,000 for every 100,000 people had a murder rate of 20.54. Finland which had a gun ownership rate of 39,000 for every 100,000 people had a murder rate of 1.98! So which of the two of these has strict gun laws...and which of these two has a murder rate VASTLY higher than the other? Luxembourg, which totally bans the private ownership of guns, had the second highest murder rate in Europe. What does that tell you about the effect of strict gun control laws on decreasing levels of violence? Once again, Brain...I ask whether you REALLY want to address the problem of violent behavior in our culture...or do you want to pass more legislation that will have ZERO effect on those people in the US that have no problem breaking the laws we already have?

 

[Brain357]

Why would I give up on Finland? It proves the point that I'm making.

European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

Russia, which had a gun ownership rate of 4,000 for every 100,000 people had a murder rate of 20.54. Finland which had a gun ownership rate of 39,000 for every 100,000 people had a murder rate of 1.98! So which of the two of these has strict gun laws...and which of these two has a murder rate VASTLY higher than the other? Luxembourg, which totally bans the private ownership of guns, had the second highest murder rate in Europe. What does that tell you about the effect of strict gun control laws on decreasing levels of violence? Once again, Brain...I ask whether you REALLY want to address the problem of violent behavior in our culture...or do you want to pass more legislation that will have ZERO effect on those people in the US that have no problem breaking the laws we already have?

Ok, so I guess your not smart enough to drop Finland. Thanks for posting homicide rates that are over 10 years old, very useful. Here are some more recent numbers:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now clearly the fairest comparison to Finland would be the other Scandinavian countries, so here are all the numbers:
Finland: 2.2
Denmark: .9
Norway: .6
Sweden: 1
Of these 4 countries Finland has the most guns per capita and the least gun laws. And oddly enough they have over twice the homicide rate of the next closest. As mentioned before it's not a very densely populated country so that 2.2 in US terms is probably a higher number. So it's pretty clear that the other Scandinavian countries are safer.

Now lets talk about Russia. Well as I mentioned I don't think they are a very fair comparison to other countries. You may not have heard of it, but they used to be the Soviet Union. The collapse of this government brought about quite a lot of chaos and crime. If you look at the homicide rate by year you'll see it jumps up drastically at the fall of the Soviet Union. You'll also see it has been falling drastically in recent years. If it continues this rate you won't be able to use them as an example in the next 3-5 years. Many of their homicides seem to involve alcohol. And well they practically have a dictator there so I don't know I'd call them a healthy democracy. So given all these things Russia just isn't a good example of a homicide rate.

So the US is at 4.8. Germany is at .8, Japan is at .4, Australia is at 1, and the UK is at 1.2. Why is it that all those countries with strict gun laws are so much lower than us? Given we have the most guns per capita of any country in the world I would think according to you we should be the lowest? Or maybe we need to throw more guns at it? I think we have a problem and we need to get to the bottom of it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why would I give up on Finland? It proves the point that I'm making.

European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

Russia, which had a gun ownership rate of 4,000 for every 100,000 people had a murder rate of 20.54. Finland which had a gun ownership rate of 39,000 for every 100,000 people had a murder rate of 1.98! So which of the two of these has strict gun laws...and which of these two has a murder rate VASTLY higher than the other? Luxembourg, which totally bans the private ownership of guns, had the second highest murder rate in Europe. What does that tell you about the effect of strict gun control laws on decreasing levels of violence? Once again, Brain...I ask whether you REALLY want to address the problem of violent behavior in our culture...or do you want to pass more legislation that will have ZERO effect on those people in the US that have no problem breaking the laws we already have?

Ok, so I guess your not smart enough to drop Finland. Thanks for posting homicide rates that are over 10 years old, very useful. Here are some more recent numbers:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now clearly the fairest comparison to Finland would be the other Scandinavian countries, so here are all the numbers:
Finland: 2.2
Denmark: .9
Norway: .6
Sweden: 1
Of these 4 countries Finland has the most guns per capita and the least gun laws. And oddly enough they have over twice the homicide rate of the next closest. As mentioned before it's not a very densely populated country so that 2.2 in US terms is probably a higher number. So it's pretty clear that the other Scandinavian countries are safer.

Now lets talk about Russia. Well as I mentioned I don't think they are a very fair comparison to other countries. You may not have heard of it, but they used to be the Soviet Union. The collapse of this government brought about quite a lot of chaos and crime. If you look at the homicide rate by year you'll see it jumps up drastically at the fall of the Soviet Union. You'll also see it has been falling drastically in recent years. If it continues this rate you won't be able to use them as an example in the next 3-5 years. Many of their homicides seem to involve alcohol. And well they practically have a dictator there so I don't know I'd call them a healthy democracy. So given all these things Russia just isn't a good example of a homicide rate.

So the US is at 4.8. Germany is at .8, Japan is at .4, Australia is at 1, and the UK is at 1.2. Why is it that all those countries with strict gun laws are so much lower than us? Given we have the most guns per capita of any country in the world I would think according to you we should be the lowest? Or maybe we need to throw more guns at it? I think we have a problem and we need to get to the bottom of it.

At no time have I stated that we don't have a problem with violence in this country. My point is that what you are proposing to do to "solve" the violence hasn't been show to work where it was tried in this country nor has it been shown to work elsewhere. What you would like to do is to take guns out of the hands of private citizens here in the US. It SOUNDS like such a simple and effective thing...I mean how can you argue with laws that are designed to keep people safe...right? But here's the rub. The problem lies not in your well intentioned plan but in the reality of what occurs when you impose stricter gun control laws. You will in fact take guns away from people who are law abiding. But are THOSE people the cause of the problem? Are people being killed by the average law abiding citizen who owns a gun for self defense...or are they being killed by criminals and crazies that couldn't care less about "the law".

It's against the law in Colorado to possess both a cut off shotgun or bombs. What were the Columbine shooters carrying with them the day they went to slaughter their fellow students? Two sawed off shotguns and a half dozen bombs! So what would having additional laws about gun ownership have done to keep that from happening? Having cut off shot guns and bombs made illegal didn't stop them from being used by two deranged kids because let's face it...when you're hell bent on committing murder...breaking a few other laws along the way isn't really going to slow you down...now is it?

 

[boilermaker55]

What ever in the hell are you talking about. The NRA has had its way in this country since its inception. Seems you have no idea what in the hell you are even talking about.
Anyone and everyone with the exceptions of felons can have a gun. And you have the stupid mind to post this post.

Watched the 60 Minutes interview with the families of the Newtown tragedy this evening and found it profoundly sad that not only was this a completely unnecessary tragedy, but that it will continue to happen because liberals are blinded by ideology and incapable of learning from history.

The bottom line - no amount of gun bans, limitations on magazine capacity, or background checks will prevent - or even limit - these tragedies. This bloodshed is self-inflicted and is squarely on the hands of the liberals.

Murder is illegal and is punishable by death - if that didn't stop a psychopath like Adam Lanza, how exactly is making firearms illegal going to stop it?

Rape is illegal, but still it continues.

Narcotics are illegal, yet the black market continues to supply it with zero impediments.

Prostitution and sex-slavery is illegal, and still the black market continues to supply that as well.

Liberals can't learn from history and are incapable of understanding actual security. They simply don't grasp that you cannot regulate human behavior - that no law will change the mind of a criminal (because a criminal, by the very definition, is someone who has chosen not to obey laws).

You want evidence that all of this proposed liberal bullshit won't work? You notice that NONE of it has been implemented to protect the President? As former Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino has stated on multiple occasions, not once did the Secret Service ever have a security briefing in which it was proposed to outlaw guns for the President's destination and then have the Secret Service go unarmed

 

[P@triot]

Your mob/riot situations don't tell us all that much because they are hypothetical.

No - the riots were not "hypothetical". They actually happened. Pretty much everyone on the planet is aware of them (except you apparently).

Who's to say Reginald wouldn't have gone for his gun just to get shot down by several rioters? That wouldn't exactly be saving him.

Talk about "hypothetical"! Who's to say your not just acting like a 6-year old now because you're not mature enough to admit you were wrong? You're coming up with the most absurd scenario's now. GROW UP! You claimed you had never heard of a situation that required high capacity magazines. I named half a dozen off the top of my head in just seconds. Now your throwing a tantrum because you received an answer that proved you had no idea what you were talking about.

Well that is an interesting story, but quite unique now isn't it?

Yeah - and it's a damn shame you're completely unaware of it (and the thousands of other home invasions just like it every year) when you insist on spouting off about a subject you know nothing about.

Something tells me the victims could have had machine guns and the result would have been the same given the attacker was a former special forces and there were 7 of them.

They "could" have? Yeah, and you "could" have been a reasonable adult having a mature discussion. But you chose not to. Instead, you just make shit up in response to my facts.

By the way - it wouldn't have mattered if the intruders had come with "machine guns" (which they didn't) had the home owners had weapons with high capacity magazines. Real life is NOT like Hollywood, genius. That would have held the intruders at bay long enough for law enforcement to arrive (which would have caused the intruders to run like hell when they heard the sirens off in the distance).

Now how many innocent people can I list that have been killed by semi-autos with high capacity magazines?

Very few - less than 1% if I remember the statistics right. But, how many people can I list that have been killed by automobiles over the past year (hint - it exceeds 40,000 which is significantly more than all gun deaths combined).

I guess you say protect the few and hell with the many?

Exactly Joseph Stalin. America was built on - and designed for - the individual. Not the collective. If you love communism so much, Cuba is waiting for you.

You have one real story where it might have saved the victims. Lets see some more. One where it actually saved the victims would mean a lot more. Otherwise your just saying well it might have helped. Meanwhile we have MANY REAL examples of them being used for evil.

I only need one example: the 2nd Amendment listed in the United States Constitution. It gives me a right to have those weapons and not give a damn what you think . Game. Set. Match.

 

[Brain357]

Why would I give up on Finland? It proves the point that I'm making.

European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

Russia, which had a gun ownership rate of 4,000 for every 100,000 people had a murder rate of 20.54. Finland which had a gun ownership rate of 39,000 for every 100,000 people had a murder rate of 1.98! So which of the two of these has strict gun laws...and which of these two has a murder rate VASTLY higher than the other? Luxembourg, which totally bans the private ownership of guns, had the second highest murder rate in Europe. What does that tell you about the effect of strict gun control laws on decreasing levels of violence? Once again, Brain...I ask whether you REALLY want to address the problem of violent behavior in our culture...or do you want to pass more legislation that will have ZERO effect on those people in the US that have no problem breaking the laws we already have?

Ok, so I guess your not smart enough to drop Finland. Thanks for posting homicide rates that are over 10 years old, very useful. Here are some more recent numbers:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now clearly the fairest comparison to Finland would be the other Scandinavian countries, so here are all the numbers:
Finland: 2.2
Denmark: .9
Norway: .6
Sweden: 1
Of these 4 countries Finland has the most guns per capita and the least gun laws. And oddly enough they have over twice the homicide rate of the next closest. As mentioned before it's not a very densely populated country so that 2.2 in US terms is probably a higher number. So it's pretty clear that the other Scandinavian countries are safer.

Now lets talk about Russia. Well as I mentioned I don't think they are a very fair comparison to other countries. You may not have heard of it, but they used to be the Soviet Union. The collapse of this government brought about quite a lot of chaos and crime. If you look at the homicide rate by year you'll see it jumps up drastically at the fall of the Soviet Union. You'll also see it has been falling drastically in recent years. If it continues this rate you won't be able to use them as an example in the next 3-5 years. Many of their homicides seem to involve alcohol. And well they practically have a dictator there so I don't know I'd call them a healthy democracy. So given all these things Russia just isn't a good example of a homicide rate.

So the US is at 4.8. Germany is at .8, Japan is at .4, Australia is at 1, and the UK is at 1.2. Why is it that all those countries with strict gun laws are so much lower than us? Given we have the most guns per capita of any country in the world I would think according to you we should be the lowest? Or maybe we need to throw more guns at it? I think we have a problem and we need to get to the bottom of it.

At no time have I stated that we don't have a problem with violence in this country. My point is that what you are proposing to do to "solve" the violence hasn't been show to work where it was tried in this country nor has it been shown to work elsewhere. What you would like to do is to take guns out of the hands of private citizens here in the US. It SOUNDS like such a simple and effective thing...I mean how can you argue with laws that are designed to keep people safe...right? But here's the rub. The problem lies not in your well intentioned plan but in the reality of what occurs when you impose stricter gun control laws. You will in fact take guns away from people who are law abiding. But are THOSE people the cause of the problem? Are people being killed by the average law abiding citizen who owns a gun for self defense...or are they being killed by criminals and crazies that couldn't care less about "the law".

It's against the law in Colorado to possess both a cut off shotgun or bombs. What were the Columbine shooters carrying with them the day they went to slaughter their fellow students? Two sawed off shotguns and a half dozen bombs! So what would having additional laws about gun ownership have done to keep that from happening? Having cut off shot guns and bombs made illegal didn't stop them from being used by two deranged kids because let's face it...when you're hell bent on committing murder...breaking a few other laws along the way isn't really going to slow you down...now is it?

Mostly what I'm doing is showing that every pro gun argument is pretty childish at best. I'm also stating that our homicide rate is an embarrassment for the greatest country in the world. Now if your brain has been taken over by the gun companies and the NRA your answer to this problem is more guns and you don't listen to any reason. Based upon your above statement having a law against say high capacity magazines still leaves these law abiding citizens with the means of defense. It does however slow the mass killer. Should be a win/win for all. But no, the pro gun movement just wants to sell more and bigger guns so that is a no go. Just throw more gas on the fire they say. So you want me to just be a gun drone and say guns are great? There are certainly other fronts to this war on homicide, but when even common sense laws are shot down it does irritate me. Is it just coincidence that all these countries with lower homicide rates also have stricter gun laws? Something tells me no.

 

[P@triot]

What ever in the hell are you talking about. The NRA has had its way in this country since its inception. Seems you have no idea what in the hell you are even talking about.

Anyone and everyone with the exceptions of felons can have a gun. And you have the stupid mind to post this post.

Actually, what ever in the hell are you talking about? You may want to turn on a TV every once in a while. Maybe read a newspaper. Possibly some news websites on the internet?

By the way, the NRA hasn't "had their way" with this country. The Constitution has had it's way with this country - all the NRA has done is uphold and defend it. Something even assholes like you should be doing.

 

[P@triot]

Mostly what I'm doing is showing that every pro gun argument is pretty childish at best.

The only thing childish is your insistence on making uninformed arguments.

I'm also stating that our homicide rate is an embarrassment for the greatest country in the world.

Which will get exponentially worse if you ban guns, stupid.

Now if your brain has been taken over by the gun companies and the NRA your answer to this problem is more guns and you don't listen to any reason.

Says the idiot who won't listen to reason. The person who has come up with the most absurd scenarios in his refusal to acknowledge that riots and home invasions happen

Is it just coincidence that all these countries with lower homicide rates also have stricter gun laws? Something tells me no.

1. Then go live in those other countries if you're so afraid to live here
   
   
   [*]Is it a coincidence that crime rates plummet every time states enact conceal carry laws? Something tells me no.
   
   
   [*]Is it a coincidence that all these countries have with stricter gun laws have higher violent crime rates than the U.S.? Something tells me no.

 

[Brain357]

Your mob/riot situations don't tell us all that much because they are hypothetical.

No - the riots were not "hypothetical". They actually happened. Pretty much everyone on the planet is aware of them (except you apparently).

Who's to say Reginald wouldn't have gone for his gun just to get shot down by several rioters? That wouldn't exactly be saving him.

Talk about "hypothetical"! Who's to say your not just acting like a 6-year old now because you're not mature enough to admit you were wrong? You're coming up with the most absurd scenario's now. GROW UP! You claimed you had never heard of a situation that required high capacity magazines. I named half a dozen off the top of my head in just seconds. Now your throwing a tantrum because you received an answer that proved you had no idea what you were talking about.



Yeah - and it's a damn shame you're completely unaware of it (and the thousands of other home invasions just like it every year) when you insist on spouting off about a subject you know nothing about.



They "could" have? Yeah, and you "could" have been a reasonable adult having a mature discussion. But you chose not to. Instead, you just make shit up in response to my facts.

By the way - it wouldn't have mattered if the intruders had come with "machine guns" (which they didn't) had the home owners had weapons with high capacity magazines. Real life is NOT like Hollywood, genius. That would have held the intruders at bay long enough for law enforcement to arrive (which would have caused the intruders to run like hell when they heard the sirens off in the distance).



Very few - less than 1% if I remember the statistics right. But, how many people can I list that have been killed by automobiles over the past year (hint - it exceeds 40,000 which is significantly more than all gun deaths combined).

I guess you say protect the few and hell with the many?

Exactly Joseph Stalin. America was built on - and designed for - the individual. Not the collective. If you love communism so much, Cuba is waiting for you.

You have one real story where it might have saved the victims. Lets see some more. One where it actually saved the victims would mean a lot more. Otherwise your just saying well it might have helped. Meanwhile we have MANY REAL examples of them being used for evil.

I only need one example: the 2nd Amendment listed in the United States Constitution. It gives me a right to have those weapons and not give a damn what you think . Game. Set. Match.

I guess you just don't get it. The riots were real, your correct. But your idea that if he had just had a gun then well everything would have been fine, now that is hypothetical. Do I have to really spell out everything for you? We really don't know what would have happened if he had a gun. It could have ended up much worse for all we know. And it's pretty clear you don't have a single incident of someone actually using and needing a high capacity semi auto for self defense. Though your made up scenarios are quite entertaining. And when that dragon decides to attack me I'll be real glad I have that semi auto with the high capacity magazines. Those poor people in your home invasion example were pretty much SOL regardless of what guns they had. Anything short of maybe security guards would not be enough.

Automobiles? Really? So you put accidental deaths in the same category and intentional homicides do you? And you tell me to grow up. Cars are all registered, you need to earn a license, there are lots of laws for driving on the road, they have seat belts and air bags... I guess your suggesting we start enacting more laws with guns?

You admit you don't really care about saving lives. Such a heroic one you are. Is that the official stance of the NRA?

So I'll be waiting for your real example of someone successfully defending their home and needing a high capacity magazine to do it. With the thousands of options it shouldn't take that long. Game. Set. Match.

 

[Brain357]

Mostly what I'm doing is showing that every pro gun argument is pretty childish at best.

The only thing childish is your insistence on making uninformed arguments.

I'm also stating that our homicide rate is an embarrassment for the greatest country in the world.

Which will get exponentially worse if you ban guns, stupid.

Now if your brain has been taken over by the gun companies and the NRA your answer to this problem is more guns and you don't listen to any reason.

Says the idiot who won't listen to reason. The person who has come up with the most absurd scenarios in his refusal to acknowledge that riots and home invasions happen

Is it just coincidence that all these countries with lower homicide rates also have stricter gun laws? Something tells me no.

1. Then go live in those other countries if you're so afraid to live here
   
   
   [*]Is it a coincidence that crime rates plummet every time states enact conceal carry laws? Something tells me no.
   
   
   [*]Is it a coincidence that all these countries have with stricter gun laws have higher violent crime rates than the U.S.? Something tells me no.

You must start name calling when you know your losing an argument. It makes you sound so much smarter. Name your favorite pro gun argument and I'll gladly say why it is childish.

I acknowledge you haven't come up with a single example of someone who actually needed a high capacity magazine for defense. You've just made up situations where maybe somebody would have needed one. Real strong argument there.

I've not seen the crime rates plummet with concealed carry. Somebody posted a bunch of charts and they didn't support that at all. I suppose they only go down for people who carry too right? So the only way to be safer is to buy a gun and carry it? Ah those gun companies love that.

Oh they all have higher violent crime rates do they? I was just looking at Germany and they seem to have us beat in that department also. But do provide your stats I'd be interested.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Here are some inconvenient facts that the dumbocrats are really going to hate:

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right

A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns

So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.

Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns? | Fox News

Liberals won't hate this fact, they'll ignore it. That's their solution to everything and why this country is in rapid deterioration.

 

[JoeB131]

Here are some inconvenient facts that the dumbocrats are really going to hate:

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right

A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns

So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.

Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns? | Fox News

Liberals won't hate this fact, they'll ignore it. That's their solution to everything and why this country is in rapid deterioration.

Somehow, I don't see how with all that smoke, panic, some people thought it was a promotional stunt related to the movie, or some kind of prank, how someone WITH a gun in the Aurora situation would have made it better.

Can you actually cite a case where someone was loaded for massacre and was stopped by someone with a CCW permit?

Thanks.

Because it never happens.

 

[Brain357]

Here are some inconvenient facts that the dumbocrats are really going to hate:

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right

A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns

So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.

Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns? | Fox News

Liberals won't hate this fact, they'll ignore it. That's their solution to everything and why this country is in rapid deterioration.

So I guess your trying to point out that in this country that is littered with guns it is so unsafe that you have to carry a gun? Gun companies love that idea. That will really help bring in visitors to this country. I wonder what would happen in a dark theater if people did return fire. Maybe some of these gunners would hit a few people trying to escape? Will they even maybe shoot each other? I guess your just arguing that what we need is a complete gun ban to be safe?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Ignore clip. Dumb misstatement, I meant magazines.

Anyway, slower is not the point. The point was number of people killed. I could do MORE damage in an enclosed area like Sandy Hook with a pair of 45’s loaded with ten round clips than I would with an AR. Rifles like the AR-15 are designed and do best in longer ranged combat situations, not room clearing.

The people in that situation were helpless and at the mercy of the attacker. The weapon used is meaningless in that context. Further, you make a statement about how conjecture and guessing is not useful in this debate and then do the exact same thing – conjecture about a shooter in a random crowd of people. Typically, these shooters are indoors where there are few means of escape.

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.

Mass killings are NOT the point. The number of people killed is. IOW, even of you stop a single mass killing every other year and thereby ‘save’ the lives of 15 people it is a BAD thing if the murder rate increases as a result by 30 people a year. Essentially, you saved 15 with the law and killed 60. Bad law.

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.

I went into detail about the problem you are making though. You are assuming that the gun laws are a factor in this at all. It really is not a factor and the numbers reflect this. It is why you compare only some nations and not others. You even stated it yourself when talking about Russia.

Social factors are FAR AND AWAY the most central reason that crime rates are so different. If you fail to realize that almost 80 percent of our murders are gang related in some way then you miss the central problem that we have. Comparing the US to England is folly of the highest regard. How many miles of border does England share with a country similar to Mexico? What portion of their population is first generation immigrant? What is the average population density in England? America? What about culture differences? Average education level? Poverty level? How many citizens so they have per peace officer? I can go on for a while more but I HOPE that you are getting the idea. International numbers are utterly meaningless when speaking about gun control because you are ignoring the literally THOUSANDS of other factors. What accounts for all those factors are localities and checking crime before and after. Simple as that. Not only does that account for the other factors, it shows us how effective actual gun laws are.

They are NOT important when used in the manner that you were using them. Instead, they obscure facts by taking two variables (homicide rate here and there) that are unrelated and demanding answers from them. They are important when looking at possible ways that we can improve but you are not looking for that. You are looking for support in a SPECIFIC area, one that has FAR better metrics to look at.

Truthfully, the ONLY reason to compare numbers from one are to another is to fabricate support where there is none.

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.

Which is why I included both.

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.

You are correct, and I should clarify my subtext to the graph and I will in future uses. It STILL supports my position though: explained later because it ties into many of your statements.

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.

Only after a decade though. To tie that into gun laws would be incorrect. Australia (like Washington) stayed relatively flat in HOMICIDE rates (other crime statistics differ quite a bit). As earlier, this still supports my position.

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

No, it is not in conclusive. You only see it that way because you are misconstruing my argument.

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.

So, for the actual explanation. You keep reading these statistics and points as though you think I am arguing that more guns is better or less restrictive gun laws means that there will be a lower homicide rate or crime rate. This is not the case. There is a debate in that but this is not a debate about whether or not less restrictive gun laws brings crimes down – it is a debate about whether or not MORE restrictive laws does the same. There is a KEY difference and it is in the burden of proof. If I wanted to relax gun laws then I would need to show how that would be better than our current situation. I would need to bring to the table proof that less restrictive gun laws drops homicide rates. I am not asking to lessen gun law.

What is happening is that you and others are pushing/advocating for greater restrictions on guns. The burden is now on you to show that grater gun restrictions lead to a decrease in homicides. The cases where you are not convinced that gun laws crated MORE death is irrelevant. They clearly did not create LESS and that is the point. The laws, whether or not caused any more harm, do not show a decrease or benefit. Ergo, those laws are ineffective and should not be passed. Each case is clear on that account if not clear on the other.

The same goes for the right to carry laws. They may not have had a positive effect because of the trend but clearly they did not have a negative one. The burden of proof, if you are advocating for stricter gun laws, lays at your feet, not at the feet of those that defend the right to own a firearm. So far, I have not seen any good evidence to show that gun laws are effective and I await for you to bring such evidence

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I proved it in the post directly before the one you quoted. You know, the one that actually posts facts and you promptly ignored it.

The same post that you have completely ignored in at least two other threads…

 

[Oldstyle]

Ok, so I guess your not smart enough to drop Finland. Thanks for posting homicide rates that are over 10 years old, very useful. Here are some more recent numbers:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now clearly the fairest comparison to Finland would be the other Scandinavian countries, so here are all the numbers:
Finland: 2.2
Denmark: .9
Norway: .6
Sweden: 1
Of these 4 countries Finland has the most guns per capita and the least gun laws. And oddly enough they have over twice the homicide rate of the next closest. As mentioned before it's not a very densely populated country so that 2.2 in US terms is probably a higher number. So it's pretty clear that the other Scandinavian countries are safer.

Now lets talk about Russia. Well as I mentioned I don't think they are a very fair comparison to other countries. You may not have heard of it, but they used to be the Soviet Union. The collapse of this government brought about quite a lot of chaos and crime. If you look at the homicide rate by year you'll see it jumps up drastically at the fall of the Soviet Union. You'll also see it has been falling drastically in recent years. If it continues this rate you won't be able to use them as an example in the next 3-5 years. Many of their homicides seem to involve alcohol. And well they practically have a dictator there so I don't know I'd call them a healthy democracy. So given all these things Russia just isn't a good example of a homicide rate.

So the US is at 4.8. Germany is at .8, Japan is at .4, Australia is at 1, and the UK is at 1.2. Why is it that all those countries with strict gun laws are so much lower than us? Given we have the most guns per capita of any country in the world I would think according to you we should be the lowest? Or maybe we need to throw more guns at it? I think we have a problem and we need to get to the bottom of it.

At no time have I stated that we don't have a problem with violence in this country. My point is that what you are proposing to do to "solve" the violence hasn't been show to work where it was tried in this country nor has it been shown to work elsewhere. What you would like to do is to take guns out of the hands of private citizens here in the US. It SOUNDS like such a simple and effective thing...I mean how can you argue with laws that are designed to keep people safe...right? But here's the rub. The problem lies not in your well intentioned plan but in the reality of what occurs when you impose stricter gun control laws. You will in fact take guns away from people who are law abiding. But are THOSE people the cause of the problem? Are people being killed by the average law abiding citizen who owns a gun for self defense...or are they being killed by criminals and crazies that couldn't care less about "the law".

It's against the law in Colorado to possess both a cut off shotgun or bombs. What were the Columbine shooters carrying with them the day they went to slaughter their fellow students? Two sawed off shotguns and a half dozen bombs! So what would having additional laws about gun ownership have done to keep that from happening? Having cut off shot guns and bombs made illegal didn't stop them from being used by two deranged kids because let's face it...when you're hell bent on committing murder...breaking a few other laws along the way isn't really going to slow you down...now is it?

Mostly what I'm doing is showing that every pro gun argument is pretty childish at best. I'm also stating that our homicide rate is an embarrassment for the greatest country in the world. Now if your brain has been taken over by the gun companies and the NRA your answer to this problem is more guns and you don't listen to any reason. Based upon your above statement having a law against say high capacity magazines still leaves these law abiding citizens with the means of defense. It does however slow the mass killer. Should be a win/win for all. But no, the pro gun movement just wants to sell more and bigger guns so that is a no go. Just throw more gas on the fire they say. So you want me to just be a gun drone and say guns are great? There are certainly other fronts to this war on homicide, but when even common sense laws are shot down it does irritate me. Is it just coincidence that all these countries with lower homicide rates also have stricter gun laws? Something tells me no.

My pointing out that imposing additional gun control laws won't really address the problem of violence in America is "childish"? Really? That's your "mature" response?

How does passing another law "slow" a mass killer? Do you not grasp the concept that mass killers don't CARE about the rule of law? You've failed to answer my point that the Columbine mass killers were in violation of laws against having cut off shot guns and possessing bombs. Why do you think that making additional gun control laws would have any effect on such people when they've totally ignored the ones you already have in place? Why do you think that eliminating guns wouldn't simply result in homicide by knife or blunt instrument? Should we ban all weapons of any kind? Once again...a wonderful idea at first blush but then the biggest thug on the block can be confident that his fists are once again the ultimate weapon and he has little to fear from those he can physically dominate. That's reality rearing its ugly head. It's why countries that HAVE very strict laws against gun ownership do not always have low rates of violent crime. When you eliminate guns you eliminate the means for weaker members of society to defend themselves. You also take away the threat of that defense...something which you may not want to admit deters crime but DOES deter crime. Which house does a home invasion artist choose as a target...the one with the NRA Member sticker on the front door or the house with peace sign on the front door? Would you REALLY want to put a sign on your front law advertising yourself as a "gun free residence"?

 

[Brain357]

At no time have I stated that we don't have a problem with violence in this country. My point is that what you are proposing to do to "solve" the violence hasn't been show to work where it was tried in this country nor has it been shown to work elsewhere. What you would like to do is to take guns out of the hands of private citizens here in the US. It SOUNDS like such a simple and effective thing...I mean how can you argue with laws that are designed to keep people safe...right? But here's the rub. The problem lies not in your well intentioned plan but in the reality of what occurs when you impose stricter gun control laws. You will in fact take guns away from people who are law abiding. But are THOSE people the cause of the problem? Are people being killed by the average law abiding citizen who owns a gun for self defense...or are they being killed by criminals and crazies that couldn't care less about "the law".

It's against the law in Colorado to possess both a cut off shotgun or bombs. What were the Columbine shooters carrying with them the day they went to slaughter their fellow students? Two sawed off shotguns and a half dozen bombs! So what would having additional laws about gun ownership have done to keep that from happening? Having cut off shot guns and bombs made illegal didn't stop them from being used by two deranged kids because let's face it...when you're hell bent on committing murder...breaking a few other laws along the way isn't really going to slow you down...now is it?

Mostly what I'm doing is showing that every pro gun argument is pretty childish at best. I'm also stating that our homicide rate is an embarrassment for the greatest country in the world. Now if your brain has been taken over by the gun companies and the NRA your answer to this problem is more guns and you don't listen to any reason. Based upon your above statement having a law against say high capacity magazines still leaves these law abiding citizens with the means of defense. It does however slow the mass killer. Should be a win/win for all. But no, the pro gun movement just wants to sell more and bigger guns so that is a no go. Just throw more gas on the fire they say. So you want me to just be a gun drone and say guns are great? There are certainly other fronts to this war on homicide, but when even common sense laws are shot down it does irritate me. Is it just coincidence that all these countries with lower homicide rates also have stricter gun laws? Something tells me no.

My pointing out that imposing additional gun control laws won't really address the problem of violence in America is "childish"? Really? That's your "mature" response?

How does passing another law "slow" a mass killer? Do you not grasp the concept that mass killers don't CARE about the rule of law? You've failed to answer my point that the Columbine mass killers were in violation of laws against having cut off shot guns and possessing bombs. Why do you think that making additional gun control laws would have any effect on such people when they've totally ignored the ones you already have in place? Why do you think that eliminating guns wouldn't simply result in homicide by knife or blunt instrument? Should we ban all weapons of any kind? Once again...a wonderful idea at first blush but then the biggest thug on the block can be confident that his fists are once again the ultimate weapon and he has little to fear from those he can physically dominate. That's reality rearing its ugly head. It's why countries that HAVE very strict laws against gun ownership do not always have low rates of violent crime. When you eliminate guns you eliminate the means for weaker members of society to defend themselves. You also take away the threat of that defense...something which you may not want to admit deters crime but DOES deter crime. Which house does a home invasion artist choose as a target...the one with the NRA Member sticker on the front door or the house with peace sign on the front door? Would you REALLY want to put a sign on your front law advertising yourself as a "gun free residence"?

Ok so lets suppose at the time of the Columbine shooting there was a complete ban on guns. Would it have been much more difficult for them to have gotten these guns? Having the shotgun was legal so cutting down the barrel was pretty easy at that point. So if we have very strict gun laws and now when these guys try to illegally buy guns they instead get caught trying to buy and get thrown in jail. That would save lives wouldn't it? It's all of course hypothetical, but why not put as many obstacles in their path as you can? I don't think a country that needs it's citizens to carry guns to be safe is very attractive to most of the US or potential visitors.

I do think you mean well and have maybe just heard too much of the NRA points of view. I do however find many of the pro gun arguments as being childish at best. Addressing the problem of violence is however very serious.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Ignore clip. Dumb misstatement, I meant magazines.

Anyway, slower is not the point. The point was number of people killed. I could do MORE damage in an enclosed area like Sandy Hook with a pair of 45’s loaded with ten round clips than I would with an AR. Rifles like the AR-15 are designed and do best in longer ranged combat situations, not room clearing.

The people in that situation were helpless and at the mercy of the attacker. The weapon used is meaningless in that context. Further, you make a statement about how conjecture and guessing is not useful in this debate and then do the exact same thing – conjecture about a shooter in a random crowd of people. Typically, these shooters are indoors where there are few means of escape.

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.

Mass killings are NOT the point. The number of people killed is. IOW, even of you stop a single mass killing every other year and thereby ‘save’ the lives of 15 people it is a BAD thing if the murder rate increases as a result by 30 people a year. Essentially, you saved 15 with the law and killed 60. Bad law.

I went into detail about the problem you are making though. You are assuming that the gun laws are a factor in this at all. It really is not a factor and the numbers reflect this. It is why you compare only some nations and not others. You even stated it yourself when talking about Russia.

Social factors are FAR AND AWAY the most central reason that crime rates are so different. If you fail to realize that almost 80 percent of our murders are gang related in some way then you miss the central problem that we have. Comparing the US to England is folly of the highest regard. How many miles of border does England share with a country similar to Mexico? What portion of their population is first generation immigrant? What is the average population density in England? America? What about culture differences? Average education level? Poverty level? How many citizens so they have per peace officer? I can go on for a while more but I HOPE that you are getting the idea. International numbers are utterly meaningless when speaking about gun control because you are ignoring the literally THOUSANDS of other factors. What accounts for all those factors are localities and checking crime before and after. Simple as that. Not only does that account for the other factors, it shows us how effective actual gun laws are.

They are NOT important when used in the manner that you were using them. Instead, they obscure facts by taking two variables (homicide rate here and there) that are unrelated and demanding answers from them. They are important when looking at possible ways that we can improve but you are not looking for that. You are looking for support in a SPECIFIC area, one that has FAR better metrics to look at.

Truthfully, the ONLY reason to compare numbers from one are to another is to fabricate support where there is none.

Which is why I included both.

You are correct, and I should clarify my subtext to the graph and I will in future uses. It STILL supports my position though: explained later because it ties into many of your statements.

Only after a decade though. To tie that into gun laws would be incorrect. Australia (like Washington) stayed relatively flat in HOMICIDE rates (other crime statistics differ quite a bit). As earlier, this still supports my position.

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

No, it is not in conclusive. You only see it that way because you are misconstruing my argument.

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.

So, for the actual explanation. You keep reading these statistics and points as though you think I am arguing that more guns is better or less restrictive gun laws means that there will be a lower homicide rate or crime rate. This is not the case. There is a debate in that but this is not a debate about whether or not less restrictive gun laws brings crimes down – it is a debate about whether or not MORE restrictive laws does the same. There is a KEY difference and it is in the burden of proof. If I wanted to relax gun laws then I would need to show how that would be better than our current situation. I would need to bring to the table proof that less restrictive gun laws drops homicide rates. I am not asking to lessen gun law.

What is happening is that you and others are pushing/advocating for greater restrictions on guns. The burden is now on you to show that grater gun restrictions lead to a decrease in homicides. The cases where you are not convinced that gun laws crated MORE death is irrelevant. They clearly did not create LESS and that is the point. The laws, whether or not caused any more harm, do not show a decrease or benefit. Ergo, those laws are ineffective and should not be passed. Each case is clear on that account if not clear on the other.

The same goes for the right to carry laws. They may not have had a positive effect because of the trend but clearly they did not have a negative one. The burden of proof, if you are advocating for stricter gun laws, lays at your feet, not at the feet of those that defend the right to own a firearm. So far, I have not seen any good evidence to show that gun laws are effective and I await for you to bring such evidence

Thank you for the well thought out response. I wish everyone here would do that rather than just take the talking points from the NRA or the far left for that matter. We might actually be able to fix the problem that way. I was just giving you a hard time about the clip. If you were arguing for gun control the pro gunners would say you don't know anything about guns and blah blah blah.

I don't dissagree about someone having two .45's for example. But why even appose a ban on high capacity magazines then? Wouldn't two .45's with say 16 round magazines be more deadly yet? Since there aren't any examples of the high capacity magazines being used for defense I think at worst it doesn't hurt anything. At best maybe some guy has to reload and drops his clip and gets tackled.

I guess I view every life as being very valuable. If you can save a few lives in a mass shooting then why not try? Will it drastically effect the overall homicide rate? Probably not, I still like to think the mass shooting are very rare, but again every life is valuable.

I agree with much of what you say about viewing numbers from other countries. You would have to admit that Russia is often given as a pro gun argument when it is really not valid. So how do you counter that? Well pointing out the low homicide rates of countries with strict gun laws. For the sake of the US I hope that the number of guns is in fact not much of a factor in homicide rate. It could be other countries ban the violent video games, or violent movies, or some of the drugs we use to treat mental health, or do better policing.... But given that all the countries with much better homicide rates do have more strict gun laws, I think that would be a mistake to not look into it further.

How about we look at Canada?

In 1991, Bill C-17 tightened up restrictions and established controls on numerous firearms. Since about then the violent crime rate went down through 2007. They currently have a homicide rate of 1.6 which is drastically better than ours. Not a perfect comparison of course, but is there something to learn from this? There may very well be. Is it wise to completely write if off? I think that would be a mistake.