MASSIVE Elementary School Shooting in CT *12-24 Maybe be dead

[gturner]

beamMe wrote:

---

I only need to look at the homicide rate in the UK and compare it to that in the US. It's four times higher in the US.

I think that says it all.

When even British criminals and mental patients could own guns, their homicide rate was lower.

And we are not the British. We are a highly diverse society with demographic groups whose homicide rates vary from less than one per hundred thousand to at times over three-hundred per hundred thousand.

If you want to adopt UK policy, wouldn't it make more sense to adopt the policies they had in place when their murder rate was far lower? Take 1960, for example, when criminals could have guns, before they tried to eliminate them, there were only a fourth as many British homicides per year as they had in 2003. The declining trend since then seems to come purely from reductions in the amount of domestic violence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...as-fallen.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ju...estic-violence

And of course, without guns European murder rates have been twenty to fifty times higher. The culture changed, even while weapons became far more lethal.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/h...lent-crime.pdf

[cooleddie74]

Great Britain isn't demographically and ethnically diverse? Have you ever seen any photographs and video footage of the citizens of modern British cities?

Where are you coming up with this crap?

[Locutus of Bored]

SantaEddie74 wrote:

---

Great Britain isn't demographically and ethnically diverse? Have you ever seen any photographs and video footage of the citizens of modern British cities?

Where are you coming up with this crap?

[MacLeod]

beamMe wrote:

---

I only need to look at the homicide rate in the UK and compare it to that in the US. It's four times higher in the US.

I think that says it all.

The disaprity is even worse when you look at only gun murders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

US = 10.2 / 100 000
UK = 0.25 / 100 000

India BTW = 0.93 / 100 000

And for the record Mexico is 11.14 per 100 000

Ukraine's is just ahead of the UK's at 0.35 per 100 000

And please provide links to the stats you are quoting

And as already been pointed out the UK despite having a higher violent crime rate per capia has a lower murder rate per capita.

Which is better more crime or more murders?

Most people would thing it better to have fewer people being slaughtered.

So you are saying when an armed civllian interceds the murder rate drops to 2.5 / 100 000. That's still over twice the overall murder rate per capita in the UK.

[gturner]

HoHoHocutus wrote:

---

I did, and I included the fact that handguns are banned despite knowing that you'd pull some goalpost moving bullshit with that single piece of information like you always do, because I'm more interested in posting facts than just things that fit my narrative, like you. How about you fucking learn what "completely banned guns" means before you throw it out a bunch of times in the thread in order to support your made up statistics? I love that you also highlighted guns being "registered" as if that was synonymous with them being banned. God, you are the most dishonest and misleading person I've ever had the displeasure of debating here, and you have stiff competition from one of your fellow gun nuts in the thread.

So you never once suspected that the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't result in changes to the communist ban on civilian guns? As Stalin reportedly said, "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"

After the collapse they loosened their restrictions, but still didn't allow civilians to own pistols. So yes, as far as I can tell, they completely banned guns back in the twenties.

At present they are working on a bill to allow civilians to possess .380's, 9mm's, and similar guns to reduce the murder rate, and also so the people can defend themselves against cops, who seem to be part of the homicide problem.

MacLeod wrote:

---

So you are saying when an armed civllian interceds the murder rate drops to 2.5 / 100 000. That's still over twice the overall murder rate per capita in the UK.

No, not 2.5 per hundred thousand, 2.5 per mass public shooting incident, instead of 14. It's a police response time problem. They can't be everywhere, and in many places can be a half-hour or an hour away. Even one of the Democrat Senators said his wife keeps a gun at home because they live in a remote area, one of those places where the bodies are cold before the police arrive.

[gturner]

SantaEddie74 wrote:

---

Great Britain isn't demographically and ethnically diverse? Have you ever seen any photographs and video footage of the citizens of modern British cities?

Where are you coming up with this crap?

To appear ethnically diverse, they have to count "White (other)" as a minority. Those are probably Belgian and French. Their next largest ethnic group, Indian, is only 1.8 percent of the population. Then it's Pakistani, "White Irish", and "mixed race."

At 92.2 percent white, they are as diverse as New Hampshire, without of course all the Swedes, Germans, Italians, and French, and only slightly more diverse than Vermont, which is 94 percent white.

By American standards, they aren't even a little bit diverse. We're 63 percent white. 20 percent of American children don't even speak English at home.

ETA: Strangely enough, Vermont, one of the few states with less diversity than the UK, also has a lower homicide rate than the UK, even though pretty much their only gun restriction is that you can't carry one in a courthouse. In one stat I saw, they were listed as having one arrest on firearms charges, so apparently someone did that.

[datagal]

gturner wrote:

---

To appear ethnically diverse, they have to count "White (other)" as a minority. Those are probably Belgian and French. Their next largest ethnic group, Indian, is only 1.8 percent of the population. Then it's Pakistani, "White Irish", and "mixed race."

At 92.2 percent white, they are as diverse as New Hampshire, without of course all the Swedes, Germans, Italians, and French, and only slightly more diverse than Vermont, which is 94 percent white.

By American standards, they aren't even a little bit diverse. We're 63 percent white. 20 percent of American children don't even speak English at home.

ETA: Strangely enough, Vermont, one of the few states with less diversity than the UK, also has a lower homicide rate than the UK, even though pretty much their only gun restriction is that you can't carry one in a courthouse. In one stat I saw, they were listed as having one arrest on firearms charges, so apparently someone did that.

You're an idiot.

[Locutus of Bored]

gturner wrote:

---

So you never once suspected that the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't result in changes to the communist ban on civilian guns? As Stalin reportedly said, "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"

It's not my job to try and prove your point for you. You made a claim (that guns were completely banned in Russia), and I refuted it. Bottom line. Anything else is you trying to shift the discussion away from your frequently inaccurate information and the ridiculous conclusions you draw from it.

thebabyjesus wrote:

---

You're an idiot.

You can call his argument idiotic, but you can't call him an idiot. Believe me, I know he's frustrating as hell, but don't let him drag you into a warning.

[datagal]

HoHoHocutus wrote:

---

It's not my job to try and prove your point for you. You made a claim (that guns were completely banned in Russia), and I refuted it. Bottom line. Anything else is you trying to shift the discussion away from your frequently inaccurate information and the ridiculous conclusions you draw from it.

You can call his argument idiotic, but you can't call him an idiot. Believe me, I know he's frustrating as hell, but don't let him drag you into a warning.

Sorry, I forgot where I was at. It won't happens again.

[cooleddie74]

Not that I was taking his arguments seriously before all the Soviet Union/Russia material wormed its way into his unintentional comedy routine, but I stopped paying any real attention after he said that Vladimir Lenin banned all private ownership of guns inside the Soviet Union in 1929.

Talk about a revolutionary figure in world history. He found a way to ban firearms five years after his own death. That takes skill most world leaders could never even dream of.

[gturner]

That's what wiki incorrectly says, while giving a citation to a 1918 decree by Lenin, and one in 1920, and articles 59 and 182 of the RSFSR criminal code (not to be confused with articles of the RSFSR code of criminal procedure), which should be from 1922 or 1926. Article 59 might cover using a weapon against the state, but isn't specific enough. All I've found online in English is a partial 1934 code link that has article 59 and the notorious article 58, but doesn't have the relevant section, which should be "Chapter VIII. Violation of rules preserving public health, social safety, and order", covering articles 179-192. I might be able to dig it up in JStor.

HoHoHoCutus wrote:

---

It's not my job to try and prove your point for you. You made a claim (that guns were completely banned in Russia), and I refuted it.

No, you didn't. I said they were banned about 90 years ago, and you refuted it with their current law. If I said the US banned alcohol 90 years ago, would you refute it by pointing to a modern beer commercial and say "See, no they didn't."


If you read through their period criminal codes, just about every provision, from avoiding taxes or smuggling to damaging anything on a railroad, or stealing any gun part or ammunition, has a penalty clause that ends with "up to the supreme measure of social defense -- shooting, with confiscation of property." Gay or perverted sex, in contrast, only got you five to eight years hard labor.

They were a disarmed population, and they still only have about a thousandth as many rifles and pistols as Americans, and yet their murder rate was higher than ours under communism, and is still higher. Getting 70 or 80 percent of our guns out of circulation is largely a fantasy, and the Russians are at a point equivalent to getting 99.9 percent of our guns out of circulation, and it's worse than where we are now, and like us, they have large criminal gangs and drug problems.

[Edit_XYZ]

gturner

All your rhetoric, baseless figures and various logical fallacies cannot change in the slightest the figures - murder rates in USA vs countries with tighter gun control, mass shootings in USA vs countries with tighter gun control, etc, etc (they were repeatedly posted here).

And all other posters here are obviously aware of this fact.

Do you actually think us such fools that you have a chance in hell of gaining some credibility here with your non-sense?
That implies an amazing amount of credulity/wishful thinking on your part, gturner. Well, I guess you need it every time you look in the mirror; in order to live with yourself, gturner.

[MacLeod]

gturner wrote:

---

To appear ethnically diverse, they have to count "White (other)" as a minority. Those are probably Belgian and French. Their next largest ethnic group, Indian, is only 1.8 percent of the population. Then it's Pakistani, "White Irish", and "mixed race."

At 92.2 percent white, they are as diverse as New Hampshire, without of course all the Swedes, Germans, Italians, and French, and only slightly more diverse than Vermont, which is 94 percent white.

By American standards, they aren't even a little bit diverse. We're 63 percent white. 20 percent of American children don't even speak English at home.

ETA: Strangely enough, Vermont, one of the few states with less diversity than the UK, also has a lower homicide rate than the UK, even though pretty much their only gun restriction is that you can't carry one in a courthouse. In one stat I saw, they were listed as having one arrest on firearms charges, so apparently someone did that.

According to the article on Wikipedia White American comes in at 72% white American not 63% as you state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_an..._United_States

[beamMe]

gturner wrote:

---

When even British criminals and mental patients could own guns, their homicide rate was lower.

And we are not the British. We are a highly diverse society with demographic groups whose homicide rates vary from less than one per hundred thousand to at times over three-hundred per hundred thousand.

If you want to adopt UK policy, wouldn't it make more sense to adopt the policies they had in place when their murder rate was far lower? Take 1960, for example, when criminals could have guns, before they tried to eliminate them, there were only a fourth as many British homicides per year as they had in 2003. The declining trend since then seems to come purely from reductions in the amount of domestic violence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...as-fallen.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ju...estic-violence

And of course, without guns European murder rates have been twenty to fifty times higher. The culture changed, even while weapons became far more lethal.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/h...lent-crime.pdf

You are comedy gold.

[MacLeod]

^Remember as well those graphs show total murders in that year. So one would expect when the population was smaller in 1960 to have fewer murders.