Guns

[ChristinaE12]

People are also ignoring the fact that robberies and other crime will skyrocket. Simply because the fact criminals know they can walk up in any house and take what they want cause noone can defend themselves.. look at certain cities that banned guns. Like Chicago for instance. You all ignored that in a previous post.


When you can see the whole picture and quit ignoring facts ill continue with you.

[NextEpisode]

Cheer up guys. There's no need to get hostile.

I'll get back with some posts after Christmas.

Until then, though, for those of you that claim/agree with;

"Robberies and other crime will skyrocket. Simply because the fact criminals know they can walk up in any house and take what they want cause noone can defend themselves.."

How is it that countries with strict gun-laws manage function then? Shouldn't countries such as Sweden have massive amounts of robberies, because the legal citizens aren't able to defend themselves against the bad ones? You might come to the conclusion that there are structural differences between the two countries, and thus we can't compare them. Well, if citizens need guns to feel safe, there sure are structural problems that need to be solved. If a citizen X in Country A feels as safe as a citizen Y in Country B. And the only difference is that in Country B, you feel safe because you have guns to protect yourself, and in Country A, you don't. Which Country is to be prefered? Point is, you shouldn't need guns to feel safe in a society.

[ChristinaE12]

You can't compare our country to others.. We aren't other countries to begin with. Also, look at the population differences. That makes quite a big difference.

If banning guns is the way to go then why is the UKs gun crime raising. Something like up 35%.. Are people forgetting that our gun crime rate is actually decreasing. Again, lets ignore facts. Cause they aren't true.

Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day.
Fact: Guns are used for self-defense 2,500,000 times a year in the United States.

That is being ignored for what reasons?

Do people also know that suicides by guns are counted as one of these gun statistics. Do people realize that if I shoot someone and kill them in my defense that it also counts as a statistic. It's not so black and white like people think.

The sooner people realize an inanimate object can't be to blame but the people behind them, the better everyone will be. People are fucked and need help. Start with education. That would help much more than trying to take them away. Fuckin people and no responsibility should be to blame.

[SliK]

I think Christina is ignorantly arguing a valid argument.

[ChristinaE12]

I think Christina is ignorantly arguing a valid argument.

Shh.. they'll try and use that against me. Damn you. It just sucks cause I have to repeat myself cause people ignore facts and won't bring any to the table themselves. Just arguing solely off their opinion.

But seriously. People need help. First and foremost.

..And what really fuckin blows is we can argue this forever. Guns will never be banned. At least in my lifetime. So people can continuously bitch all they want. I just don't understand why people are trying to change something that has nothing to do with their country/laws,people..in the end. Makes no sense.

[SajN]

I just don't understand why people are trying to change something that has nothing to do with their country/laws,people..in the end. Makes no sense.

Ask your government and what they've been doing for years.

But that's another topic

[ChristinaE12]

I just don't understand why people are trying to change something that has nothing to do with their country/laws,people..in the end. Makes no sense.

Ask your government and what they've been doing for years.

But that's another topic

Totally another topic. But that isn't just our Government either. And what they are trying to change is what the actual citizens want. Not going against what they want. But yeah, anyways.

[NextEpisode]

You can't compare our country to others.. We aren't other countries to begin with. Also, look at the population differences. That makes quite a big difference.

Knew you'd make this point. It is not obvious to me, however, that this in fact is true. Because, whilst I agree that there may be certain differences between countries, we aren't talking about 'apples and oranges' here. For example, most western-countries are built upon a relatively common institutional ground. For the most part, we have a common legal-systems, on-top of that we have international laws. The same goes for the political-systems, for whilst they may display differences on the surface, they work - in its core - very alike. Also, countries tend to 'move in the same direction' (for lack of better phrasing).The 'Industrial Revolution' began in the UK, but what happened then? Other countries followed. What works GREAT for one country, often works quite well for others too. Just like simplest decision-making theory concludes; if X is to choose between A and B, and X knows that A is better than B, X's rational choice is to choose A. In general, this has been the case for most countries policy-making.

If you have two objects that are very alike in most aspects, but still have some differences (some might be big, and others just details), you can in most cases account for these differences. You can study & calculate the magnitude to which certain factors has a positive or negative effect on a certain response variable, and whether there is any correlation/pattern between certain variables/factors. Then you can, by taking into account the potential differences, make - generalized - conclusions that are of statistical significance.

I do not think one should blindly compare two countries, one must recognize that there ARE differences. But to a certain extent, I would argue that it is in fact of importance to compare countries, and the way they work. I’m SURE you’re policy-makers do just that.

If banning guns is the way to go then why is the UKs gun crime raising. Something like up 35%.. Are people forgetting that our gun crime rate is actually decreasing. Again, lets ignore facts. Cause they aren't true.

I’ve never stated that guns should be banned, have I?

My first thought after reading this particular statment of yours, can be described by a quote from the late Twain;

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. - Mark Twain

This is one of the most frustrating things about politics, and in my view, the biggest flaws of people’s arguments. People with a certain view, tend to look for statistics that solidifies their argument, but miss to reflect on those that aren’t. One must also, when using statistics consider from what source this is being published. Behind all the figures are people, who have views & biases too. Therefore, one should always look at the big-picture; always try to look at all available information.

You say; “UKs gun crime raising. Something like up 35%..”. Whilst “our [US] gun crime rate is actually decreasing”.

Is this a representative presentation of the current situation? In a sense, maybe (if the figures you mention are valid). But is it telling the whole story, or even the most important one? Let’see…

From the sources [that are listed here below] you’ll find that in 2011, there were 12.664 homicides/murders in the US, of which 8.583 were caused by firearms. In the UK, on the other hand, there were 551 homicides/murders for the same year. These stats don’t give a fair representation of the whole-picture though (the US is a lot bigger in terms of population).
Instead, let’s compare standardized measurements. I think these are of importance;

1. ‘Homocide by firearm., rate per 100.000 pop’
US = 2.97
UK = 0.07

From this you can calculate the odds-ratio; 2.97/0.7 = 42.43. Which tells you that, after accounting for population differences, the risk of getting murdered by a firearm is 42 times more likely in the US, compared to the UK.

2. ‘% of homicides by firearm’
US = 60 %
UK = 6.6 %

Again, the odds-ratio; 0.60/0.066 = 9.09. Which tells you that: it is ~9 times more likely in the US that a homicide is caused by a firearm, compared to the UK.

3. ‘Average firearms per 100 people’
US = 88.2 %
UK = 6.2 %

__________________________
Original source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... -u.s.-2011
Newspaper (The Guardian). Seleced stats related to this issue; http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... world-list
__________________________

Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day.
Fact: Guns are used for self-defense 2,500,000 times a year in the United States.

That is being ignored for what reasons?

Lol. You repeatedly use the word “fact” in reference to your statements. Do you know what these are? At best, they are estimates. In worst case, biased guesses. Presenting figures like this creates confusion, for it only tells one side of the story, and it is not clear how these figures have been calculated. What is your source?

Do people also know that suicides by guns are counted as one of these gun statistics. Do people realize that if I shoot someone and kill them in my defense that it also counts as a statistic. It's not so black and white like people think.

Yes, suicides are included in the homicide statistic. But in the figures I’ve just presented, they are included for both the US and the UK. So it doesn’t really matter for the sake of the argument.
Shooting someone ‘in your defense’ might be justified by law, but there is still a human losing his/her life. Which is what really is relevant.

The sooner people realize an inanimate object can't be to blame but the people behind them, the better everyone will be. People are fucked and need help. Start with education. That would help much more than trying to take them away. Fuckin people and no responsibility should be to blame.

People are formed by the nature they live in, and their actions are - at least to a certain degree - a result of which tools they have access to. Take it to an extreme. If we for a second assume everyone has access to a nuclear-weapon. Maybe we can’t blame the ‘inanimate object’, nuclear-weapon in this case, but is a situation like this sustainable?

As far as people being “fucked”. Well, would you argue that people are “fucked” to a larger degree in the US compared to the rest of the world? Probably not. Yes, a lot of effort should be directed at helping people before they even come to the situation in which they consider making the crime. I’ve said this couple of times. But at the same time, we must also realize that we’re not living in a perfect world. Everyone that needs help won’t get it, unfortunately.

[ChristinaE12]

I could easily respond to all that but it'd honestly be a waste of fuckin time on everyone's end. Nothing is going to change and that is that.

I, honestly, have zero time to 'argue' for absolutely nothing. Especially when there will be zero change in outcome no matter how much or how little effort in a reply. The last 17 pages prove that and nothing or nobodies opinions will change no matter what. It would be completely ignorant for me to continue.

It was 'fun' while it lasted, I guess. Haha.

[SliK]

And Christina takes the L.

[ChristinaE12]

And Christina takes the L.

Its pretty sad when I knew that was going to happen.. Forum games, I guess.

And..How is that.. Especially when I have said shit way back in the beginning that hasn't been addressed. I could pick and choose shit too.. It's literally pointless for me at this point.

Here is the thing.. What exactly is going to change If I were to continue... Absolutely nothing.

See, unlike most people here.. I have a family and children that if I were to continue for no reason.. This takes time away from them. I also have a full time job. I just don't have time to argue for nothing. If something were to come out of it would be different. But we both no better than that.

Believe me.. It's easy for me to argue. And I could all day long. But again. For what reason would I want to argue for nothing with people I don't know. And take time away from my job and family.

Oh.. And is obvious that me and NextEpisode are arguing two different points. I'm arguing against the banning of guns. Soon as NextEpisode said he never said he wanted to ban them. I knew it's pointless to respond. I already said at the beginning I also want stricter gun laws. Just not to completely ban them. Two different arguments. We'd be arguing the same thing then.

**EDIT**

Also if you dont do anything else.. Please look into this. It's much easier for you to look than me pull shit from random sites and the sources. This has all of that and then some. Take it how you want. But it is very informative from all perspectives. Plus it has sources for everything said. Just as much legit as anyone else can post from wherever.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publicfi ... ts_BFA.pdf

/inbeforeitsbullshitthencontinuestopostbullshit.

[CrashBand]

And Christina takes the L.

[psu24]

Now they're reporting only handguns were used, yet the doctor claims all the shots were taken with a rifle, guessing he was paid off. Our gov. was waiting for something like this to happen so they can get their way but looks like it's backfiring. Too bad we may never hear the full story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30sjtuXc ... e=youtu.be

[AbramIsaac]

Now they're reporting only handguns were used, yet the doctor claims all the shots were taken with a rifle, guessing he was paid off. Our gov. was waiting for something like this to happen so they can get their way but looks like it's backfiring. Too bad we may never hear the full story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30sjtuXc ... e=youtu.be

Sorry, I'm unable to watch that right now, but are you talking about the school shooting?

Because if this is another one of those theories that the government is just waiting for that perfect tragedy--or that they somehow had a hand in it one way or another--in order to justify taking people's guns away, I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. When the senator in Arizona was shot in the head with an assault rifle, the same thing was said. When James Holmes did what he did, the same thing was said. Every single time something like this happens, it's like people are expecting the government to take everyone's guns away.

I'm sorry, but if that were the case, it would have already happened. For better or worse, these types of events aren't enough justification politically to advocate for banning assault rifles. At most, you might see them re-enact the fully automatic weapons ban again, and maybe place some restrictions on high-capacity magazines, but even that's doubtful. Obama hasn't really pushed for any type of gun control at all, yet people are so frightened that he's just waiting to rid them of their weapons.

I get that people feel the need to remain vigilant when defending their "right" to have these types of guns. I understand that without keeping careful watch over what goes on, there's a good chance that those rights will be eroded away. But being ridiculously paranoid and arguing for the right to have a fully automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine, or a 50 caliber rifle that could blow through just about anything from 300 yards away isn't a good look.

[ChristinaE12]

Yeah.. unfortunately for our government to try something like that it will take much more than a few tragedies.

If guns were as easy to get rid of like people think and was the end all to everything they would have taken them away a long time ago. They know the backlash would be worse.

That's the thing. We can argue but we all know nothing much will change. Right or wrong.