Even when you don't make them up in your head you get the numbers wrong.
So you accept gun-murders because "death happens anyway in one form or another"?
MASSIVE Elementary School Shooting in CT *12-24 Maybe be dead
- Thread starter bigdaddy
- Start date
Even when you don't make them up in your head you get the numbers wrong.
So you accept gun-murders because "death happens anyway in one form or another"?
Read your own link. They have NO legal pistols and almost no rifles (226,000 in the entire country, which is probably a fifth as many as you'd find in Kentucky or Tennessee).
If Russians had a lot of guns, Stalin couldn't have kept shipping them off to labor camps by the millions.
They are basically disarmed, which is why a gun is only used in a tiny percentage (about 5 percent) of their vast number of murders. They kill twice as many people with knives as we do from all means combined, and knives are less than half their murders. Strangulation, blunt objects, and "unspecified means" rate way up there, and knowing Russian history, unspecified means is probably a state secret involving a vodka bottle and a sharpened potato.
Great. Another "gun control is what Nazis and Communists do so we'd be just as bad as Hitler or Stalin if we attempted any form of it" argument that isn't really an argument.
Godwin and his cousin Lenin must be mighty proud of these shooting threads this past week.
No, I accept guns because they stop a lot of murders. As pointed out above, with guns we have about a fourth of Russia's homicide rate, almost none of which involves a gun.
As the number of guns in the US has soared, along with concealed carry permit holders, the murder rate has plunged. It's not how many guns you have, it's who has those guns. In Mexico, though guns are generally legal, there is only one gun store for the entire nation and gun ownership is relatively rare. Yet Chihuahua's homicide rate is 111 per 100,000, which is just about off the charts.
The US is not like the UK, full of lords in tweed jackets, who, by the way, are now the most violent nation in Europe, and whose rate of violent crime vastly exceeds the US. We will not become like Sweden if you outlaw guns. We're more likely to become a nation of illegal guns with murder rates somewhere between Ukraine and Chihuahua's.
All but one public mass shooting since 1950, where four or more people have been killed, have occured in a gun-free zone. All we're doing is making hunting parks. The average number of people killed in mass public shootings that are ended by police intervension is 14. The average number of people killed when an armed citizen intervenes is 2.5, because when an armed citizen stops it, it means the armed citizen was already at the scene.
In Mumbai India, with incredibly strict gun laws and virtually no firearms culture, eleven young men killed 166 and wounded over 300, holding the city essentially hostage for three days. They even went shooting past a police station, which just locked its gates. In theory, India should be a gun-free utopia. In reality, more Indians than Americans are murdered every year (though their per-capita rate is lower), and they have to worry about being taken over for days by a dozen young guys in sport shirts and slacks who apparently had fewer guns than I used to own.
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.
Even some liberal law professors grudgingly published a paper finding an inverse link between fire-arms ownership and genocide. Where citizens are freely allowed to own guns, and do at high rates, genocides don't occur because too many people start shooting back.
Lenin banned guns in 1929, and then began rounded people up and exterminating them, about 20 million by the time it was mostly over in the 1950's.
Turkey instituted gun control in 1911. Within seven years they rounded up and killed over a million Armenians, who had become defenseless.
Nazi Germany's famous gun ban came in 1938, and we all know what happened there.
Guatemala put in gun control in 1964, then in about 15 yeas rid the world of a hundred thousand Mayans.
Uganda passed gun control in 1970, and before that decade was out had gotten rid of 300,000 Christians.
China had the gun control acts of 1951 and 1957, which included the death penalty for selling guns to anyone who resisted any government program. Another 20 to 30 million dead.
Euopean gun laws are all over the map, and their murder rates are all about the same, if not inverse of their restrictiveness. France still lets anyone own a pistol. In Czechoslovakia anyone over 18 can carry a pistol concealed. Italians are only allowed to possess several pistols (and unlimited long guns). After the Finland massacre, Finland decided to let people use semi-automatic pistols because, by gosh, someone should be able to shoot back. They all have lower violence rates than the UK.
How can we take you seriously?
Lenin was dead by 1929.
And please educate yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act
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.
He wanted to make sure the people were disarmed before he came back as a zombie.
Last edited:
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/uknews/crime/9411649/Graphic-how-the-murder-rate-has-fallen.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/falling-murder-rate-domestic-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/...g-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf
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?
Where are you coming up with this crap?
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?
The disaprity is even worse when you look at only gun murders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_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.
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 said:
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
You're an idiot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
HoHoHoCutus said:
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.