You're missing the point. The US has less violent crime and murder and is safer than it has been in a long time. Gun ownership among other factors helped to solve half of the problem of violent crime over the last 20 years. I need a gun less and less every day. But still I can say that twice as safe is not safe enough and that is obvious when watching US national news. Always remember that the US has almost 300,000,000 more people than the UK when you watch or hear news from this country. I feel like we have a magnifying lens over us which is the perception of other Western countries who do not recognize the major difference in population. If we were measuring overall crime per square mile in the First World the US would be close to last and the UK would be near the top.
Gun control is a matter of stopping the treatment when the disease is getting better. Guns are part of the solution that has made it so safe today compared to 20 years ago, not the problem. Why make them illegal now when lawful gun owners have already done so much good for themselves and the nation? Do lawful gun owners not deserve any credit for doing their part to decrease violent crime and homicide by a full 50%?
Would my revolver get no recognition for saving my life if god forbid the time came? If a woman saves her children from a violent home invader with her gun, why does the gun not get the credit since it gets the blame when it is used wrongfully?
Last edited by flymike91, .
Kev there are areas in many European cities where people like you and I are would not be safe or welcome at any time of the day and even the police are not respected. If you were mugged in one of these areas you could only hope that all they want is your cell phone because if they beat you to death no one could catch them.
@Hummer
Still using Oslo as an example which is the most populous city in Norway, the number of rapes committed there is extreme by any standards, but it is no coincidence that it is mostly occurring in a city with such a high density of people and not in the country or smaller towns.
To me being armed comes down to choice and personal responsibility. I choose every day to be responsible for my own safety. I am lucky that I live in a place where that choice is not a privilege but a human right. In fact more and more police officials across this nation are encouraging people to be more responsible for their safety and use the tools that are available to do so (not just handguns). They admit their shortcomings and their inability to be where you are at the moment you are in need. I don't hear of the police in Oslo telling Norwegian women to protect themselves, or even admitting to the fact they they cannot solve the rape epidemic with whistles. Women there are treated like second-class citizens who neither the police nor the law will protect because they cannot defend themselves like a man could with his body. Defenseless women have to do silly things like dye their hair black or brown to be less of an enticing target for men; to change their entire persona and way of life for fear of rape or physical violence. Criminals should be the ones who need to operate in fear of their lives, not lawful citizens! There is no fear of the police or the legal system when the conviction rate is so low.
@Hummer
Still using Oslo as an example which is the most populous city in Norway, the number of rapes committed there is extreme by any standards, but it is no coincidence that it is mostly occurring in a city with such a high density of people and not in the country or smaller towns.
To me being armed comes down to choice and personal responsibility. I choose every day to be responsible for my own safety. I am lucky that I live in a place where that choice is not a privilege but a human right. In fact more and more police officials across this nation are encouraging people to be more responsible for their safety and use the tools that are available to do so (not just handguns). They admit their shortcomings and their inability to be where you are at the moment you are in need. I don't hear of the police in Oslo telling Norwegian women to protect themselves, or even admitting to the fact they they cannot solve the rape epidemic with whistles. Women there are treated like second-class citizens who neither the police nor the law will protect because they cannot defend themselves like a man could with his body. Defenseless women have to do silly things like dye their hair black or brown to be less of an enticing target for men; to change their entire persona and way of life for fear of rape or physical violence. Criminals should be the ones who need to operate in fear of their lives, not lawful citizens! There is no fear of the police or the legal system when the conviction rate is so low.
I wasn't comparing Norway to the US I was comparing NY to Oslo, but you're right that the comparison isn't correct.
Still, the way gun laws are progressing forwards, NY's de facto handgun ban will also be ruled unconstitutional in time. I would be very happy to make a better comparison then.
Still, the way gun laws are progressing forwards, NY's de facto handgun ban will also be ruled unconstitutional in time. I would be very happy to make a better comparison then.
yes, it is widely known that Eric Holder is a fked up individual. Or maybe he was just following order from president Obama? At the very least Obama should be impeached and Holder tried for aiding and abetting a felony murder in the first degree. Oh we're talking about real life? nvm.
Last edited by flymike91, .
I've got gallons of exceptionalism!
I'm with rappa, I don't think there will be any gun legislation any time soon, the statistics indicating that crime is on a substantial downward trend are just convincing enough to balance out the left wing media histrionics.
I'm with rappa, I don't think there will be any gun legislation any time soon, the statistics indicating that crime is on a substantial downward trend are just convincing enough to balance out the left wing media histrionics.
I haven't seen a car yet that can drive a car.
Exceptionalism is measured with the imperial system, feet and inches. Please refrain from using your tiny inferior centiwhatevers in my opulent presence.
On the graph of DC crime rate trends (posted pg. 7) before and after the handgun ban was lifted, there is a substantial decrease in every category of crime, and a ~15% decrease in sexual assault. Considering the overall crime rate only dropped at all the year the ban was lifted I think is enough to establish a strong relation, but is probably not enough to be credited for 100% of the decrease. Maybe there is value to women who simply feel safer knowing protection is in their purse and not 30 minutes away.
That doesn't surprise me, UK criminals are not at all concerned about facing an armed victim. That is not the case in the US, but you have to take my word on that.
@dawsdust: I'm done with you. If you read what I'm writing and responded in kind instead of making whatever inane comment comes into your head we could have a discussion. If I see you're making an effort I will respond.
Last edited by flymike91, .
It already has worked. Allowing people to carry guns and training them in their proper use has contributed to a massive decrease in overall gun crime rates and murder rates thoughout the country.
I think it could also work in Scandinavian countries where the police studiously look the other way to ignore the problems they face such as Norway's first rape epidemic. Even a few cases of women fighting back with guns against rapists could bring the overall rate down as rapists realize they rape women at the risk of their own lives, whereas right now the chance of being punished for rape is essentially zero. This is a result of relying on politically correct police and legislators for protection instead of one's self.
I could be wrong, I admit. It may be that in Norway it is a culturally enriching experience for a young woman to be beaten and raped by new and exciting cultures.
I think it could also work in Scandinavian countries where the police studiously look the other way to ignore the problems they face such as Norway's first rape epidemic. Even a few cases of women fighting back with guns against rapists could bring the overall rate down as rapists realize they rape women at the risk of their own lives, whereas right now the chance of being punished for rape is essentially zero. This is a result of relying on politically correct police and legislators for protection instead of one's self.
I could be wrong, I admit. It may be that in Norway it is a culturally enriching experience for a young woman to be beaten and raped by new and exciting cultures.
Last edited by flymike91, .
Australia does not have a problem with violent crime in general, and really didn't before the handgun ban either (I am aware of the few incidents that drove the ban). The US, UK, and parts of continental Europe and Scandinavia have a major problem with violent crime where the same laws are in place. The US solved many of those problems by lifting gun bans and encouraging 2nd amendment use. The proof is in the 50% reduction in violent crime and homicide over 20 years, and a 50% reduction in homicide after 4 years in Washington D.C. after the ban was declared unconstitutional in 2008. Everyone knows Australians are friendly so congrats to them.
But does everyone also know that the number of rapes per capita in Oslo is 6x higher than in New York City? Only .5% result in a conviction. That is a 70% increase in rape since 2011 with about one rape reported every day. With no means to protect themselves and no chance of justice, the majority are simply not reported. The real "War on Women" is preventing women from having access to an equalizing tool. Women are punished most unfairly by anti-gun laws because they commit almost no gun crimes, yet need personal protection more than anyone else. The police in Norway are obviously not capable of dealing with the extreme increase in violent crime against women, but also will not allow them to protect themselves in a way that is effective.
The great thing about an armed citizenry is that not everyone has to be armed or should be armed to make it safer for everyone. If a rapist wants a nice Norwegian girl tonight, he knows he will be successful. When a rapist wants a Texan girl, she might have a pistol in her purse and could legally shoot him. An armed man could hear her yelling while walking by the alley and also shoot him. Ask an American criminal what he is most afraid of; it's facing an armed would-be victim. Considering how high the rate of rape is in Oslo and how low it is in Austin, it seems to make a difference when a rapist has to weigh his chances of being killed or maimed by a woman.
But does everyone also know that the number of rapes per capita in Oslo is 6x higher than in New York City? Only .5% result in a conviction. That is a 70% increase in rape since 2011 with about one rape reported every day. With no means to protect themselves and no chance of justice, the majority are simply not reported. The real "War on Women" is preventing women from having access to an equalizing tool. Women are punished most unfairly by anti-gun laws because they commit almost no gun crimes, yet need personal protection more than anyone else. The police in Norway are obviously not capable of dealing with the extreme increase in violent crime against women, but also will not allow them to protect themselves in a way that is effective.
The great thing about an armed citizenry is that not everyone has to be armed or should be armed to make it safer for everyone. If a rapist wants a nice Norwegian girl tonight, he knows he will be successful. When a rapist wants a Texan girl, she might have a pistol in her purse and could legally shoot him. An armed man could hear her yelling while walking by the alley and also shoot him. Ask an American criminal what he is most afraid of; it's facing an armed would-be victim. Considering how high the rate of rape is in Oslo and how low it is in Austin, it seems to make a difference when a rapist has to weigh his chances of being killed or maimed by a woman.
thats true enough, its not a great example of freedom in action. it really sucks down there.
I understand that your thinking is very very simple, but it doesn't make it true.
In Mexico, there are far fewer guns than in the US, and lawful citizens are also banned from owning them. Do I need to describe the situation in Mexico to you?
Not even your thoughts which are so simple that they required only the dull flicker of one neuron to form are true.
In Mexico, there are far fewer guns than in the US, and lawful citizens are also banned from owning them. Do I need to describe the situation in Mexico to you?
Not even your thoughts which are so simple that they required only the dull flicker of one neuron to form are true.
Most gun laws are current. All concealed carry laws have been written since 1987. The most important act of legislation protecting gun owners was passed in 1986, and the affirmation of the rights of citizens to peacefully keep and bear arms was a decision made by the supreme court only in 2008. The fight for protection under the law to exercise our right has only really been successful since the 80's.
Incidentally, large cities that had gun bans saw an instant decrease in murders after the bans were lifted. Washington D.C. is the best known example where homicide rates dropped 50% after the ban was lifted. In fact, every type of crime fell after the gun ban was deemed unconstitutional. I don't think there is evidence that gun bans work to reduce overall crime. They don't work in the UK, they don't work for shit in Mexico, and they don't work in the US.
No facts or statistics exist to corroborate your views that access to guns causes higher rates of shooting deaths. I really don't know why I'm continuing this with you since you are obviously not backing up anything you say with evidence.
Incidentally, large cities that had gun bans saw an instant decrease in murders after the bans were lifted. Washington D.C. is the best known example where homicide rates dropped 50% after the ban was lifted. In fact, every type of crime fell after the gun ban was deemed unconstitutional. I don't think there is evidence that gun bans work to reduce overall crime. They don't work in the UK, they don't work for shit in Mexico, and they don't work in the US.
No facts or statistics exist to corroborate your views that access to guns causes higher rates of shooting deaths. I really don't know why I'm continuing this with you since you are obviously not backing up anything you say with evidence.
Last edited by flymike91, .
No, you just made that up. The number of people who are licensed to carry concealed and murder people is pretty much none. They (we) are infinitely less likely to be involved in a shooting unrelated to self defense than someone who carries a concealed weapon without a permit (like gangbangers do every day). If you wanted to kill people why would you wait 6 weeks to get a permit?
I refuse to believe that every gun owner in the country is equally likely to go on a shooting spree because they obviously are not. Being raised in a functional and complete family, finishing basic education and using that education to obtain gainful employment are not hallmarks of a mass murderer. Neither is having a group of supportive friends who would tell them murder is not cool. It is not my problem that people decide not to provide or encourage those things for their children, nor should I be punished for their actions.
Despite what has been in the news recently, gun crime is a problem that effects urban areas and minorities far more everyone else, so why take guns from small town white dudes to solve the problem of inner city gun crime? I don't have anything to do with gun crime in Los Angeles or Atlanta or anywhere!
I refuse to believe that every gun owner in the country is equally likely to go on a shooting spree because they obviously are not. Being raised in a functional and complete family, finishing basic education and using that education to obtain gainful employment are not hallmarks of a mass murderer. Neither is having a group of supportive friends who would tell them murder is not cool. It is not my problem that people decide not to provide or encourage those things for their children, nor should I be punished for their actions.
Despite what has been in the news recently, gun crime is a problem that effects urban areas and minorities far more everyone else, so why take guns from small town white dudes to solve the problem of inner city gun crime? I don't have anything to do with gun crime in Los Angeles or Atlanta or anywhere!
watched as in paid attention to by everyone, not arrested by the police.
You can't have it both ways and say that anti-social people need more and better access to mental health care and then say leave them alone to stew in their own thoughts.
You can't have it both ways and say that anti-social people need more and better access to mental health care and then say leave them alone to stew in their own thoughts.
I think I've been reasonable and concise with my views in this thread. Its always easy to just say I'm stupid when you disagree without knowing your own views well enough to say why you disagree and have something called a conversation.
I also never suggested that weird people should be arrested, but it every time a shooter kills a bunch of people everyone comes out of the woodwork with 20/20 hindsight and can list all of the signs they should have reacted to in order to prevent the loss of innocent lives. I'm simply suggesting that people react to those signs when they see them instead of after a shooting. Anti-social people should be directed towards sources of support in their community and people who are willing to listen to them. They obviously do not seek out help for themselves enough to make a difference when it matters, so everyone in a community needs to get their faces out of their phones and pay attention to the people around them. Is it wrong to pay attention?
I also never suggested that weird people should be arrested, but it every time a shooter kills a bunch of people everyone comes out of the woodwork with 20/20 hindsight and can list all of the signs they should have reacted to in order to prevent the loss of innocent lives. I'm simply suggesting that people react to those signs when they see them instead of after a shooting. Anti-social people should be directed towards sources of support in their community and people who are willing to listen to them. They obviously do not seek out help for themselves enough to make a difference when it matters, so everyone in a community needs to get their faces out of their phones and pay attention to the people around them. Is it wrong to pay attention?
I realize that in your mind every topic of conversation is just "USA", but what we're talking about here and what you are talking about are actually not the same, but it was pretty creative the way you tried to make it seem like one follows from the other. It does not.
Please inform us which war was fought and won without guns. You're exaggerating, which in a topic of debate that calls for real facts and statistics is not helpful to your argument or this thread.
Congratulations to the security guard who saved children's lives, his heroism is buried at the very bottom of the page even on Foxnews.com. I wonder if MSNBC will cover it?
It is logistically and constitutionally impossible for the government to remove all 350,000,000+ guns without sparking a civil war, so if your goal is to save lives you're going about it the wrong way.
Mass murder and citizen disarmament go hand in hand, with Nazi Germany being the best example. Our founding fathers wanted to make sure it didn't happen here because it happened to them before the revolutionary war. If we don't learn from history and keep soothing ourselves with fake safety we are doomed to repeat our worst mistakes.
It is the job of the legislators to solve problems without removing our rights even if that would be the easy thing to do. Since violent crime and murders have already dropped drastically over the last 20 years and continue to drop today I would reason the the best thing they can do is allow that trend to continue and do nothing. If the policies already in place have been successful, why interfere?
Mass murder and citizen disarmament go hand in hand, with Nazi Germany being the best example. Our founding fathers wanted to make sure it didn't happen here because it happened to them before the revolutionary war. If we don't learn from history and keep soothing ourselves with fake safety we are doomed to repeat our worst mistakes.
It is the job of the legislators to solve problems without removing our rights even if that would be the easy thing to do. Since violent crime and murders have already dropped drastically over the last 20 years and continue to drop today I would reason the the best thing they can do is allow that trend to continue and do nothing. If the policies already in place have been successful, why interfere?
with the "cheating" methods we talked about earlier in this thread for making best use of CPU, the only difference between versions released this fall and the version perhaps in 2014 would be higher resolution/higher poly count/better frame rates so...just a more powerful console, not some completely different system. Future GTA VI may be a lot better looking but I still have fun playing N64 so that doesn't mean much.
Speaking of N64, I hope the next generation of consoles can be upgraded with better hardware. The N64 got a few more years out of the graphical expansion pack with games that required it like Majora's Mask and some others.
Speaking of N64, I hope the next generation of consoles can be upgraded with better hardware. The N64 got a few more years out of the graphical expansion pack with games that required it like Majora's Mask and some others.
You haven't made any points about gun control that I have not already addressed. Like I said, guns are demonstratively and statistically not the problem, so our energy is better used coming up with other solutions.
Last edited by flymike91, .
I'm being reasonable, so I expect the same from you. And yes, a shooting every day is still a 50% reduction in the last 20 years. One or more of our 313,000,000+ citizens commits violent acts every day. Almost all of the assaults and murders are committed in high density urban areas, of which the US has more than any other nation on Earth and yet we do not have the highest rates of violent crime in the First World.
I didn't bring up the comparison between the US and UK violent crime rates, but I entertained the notion that they could be meaningfully compared to show Kev that it doesn't benefit his argument. In reality, it is meaningless to compare crime stats because the laws and many other factors like population are totally different. It may be better to compare the UK to other European countries like Germany and Switzerland. The UK has more homicides per capita than Germany which has not banned guns (entirely) and far more than Switzerland which requires citizens to have guns. I don't know how many more times I can show guns are not the problem. I would like to move the discussion to means of really reducing violence but only if we can move past this point.
I think people should be more wary of anti-social people and inform the appropriate people more frequently. I don't know about the whole armed guards in school thing. There were always one or more armed police officers at my school and it made me feel safer the few times I even thought about it. I've heard people say that if it's good enough for Obama's kids then it's good enough for ours and I think there may be something to that. In the end the parents and school district should vote and decide if it is worth the money to have a police liaison at the school.
I didn't bring up the comparison between the US and UK violent crime rates, but I entertained the notion that they could be meaningfully compared to show Kev that it doesn't benefit his argument. In reality, it is meaningless to compare crime stats because the laws and many other factors like population are totally different. It may be better to compare the UK to other European countries like Germany and Switzerland. The UK has more homicides per capita than Germany which has not banned guns (entirely) and far more than Switzerland which requires citizens to have guns. I don't know how many more times I can show guns are not the problem. I would like to move the discussion to means of really reducing violence but only if we can move past this point.
I think people should be more wary of anti-social people and inform the appropriate people more frequently. I don't know about the whole armed guards in school thing. There were always one or more armed police officers at my school and it made me feel safer the few times I even thought about it. I've heard people say that if it's good enough for Obama's kids then it's good enough for ours and I think there may be something to that. In the end the parents and school district should vote and decide if it is worth the money to have a police liaison at the school.
Violent crime in the US has decreased 50% since 1992. The country is safer now than it has been in a very long time. Since 1992, tens of millions of people have applied for and obtained permits to carry concealed pistols. In Texas, almost 2,000 people per DAY apply for a permit (many don't qualify). The more people own guns, the less likely it is that they will have to use them as violent crime continues to drop. That is exactly the situation George Washington described when he wrote about the importance of an armed society.
not in the UK apparently where violent crime is 3.5 times higher per 100,00 than the US. It is by far the most violent country in the EU. If I lived there I would definitely carry my pistol, except I would be thrown in jail. What better place for criminals than one where people are imprisoned for defending themselves from criminals?
And saying that 350,000,000 guns should be stolen by the government because they might be stolen by criminals first should sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c82_1357146088
And saying that 350,000,000 guns should be stolen by the government because they might be stolen by criminals first should sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c82_1357146088
Getting weapons will always be easy for criminals its what they do. The only thing gun laws can do is make it more difficult for people who follow laws to protect themselves against people who don't. The police could not be there to protect the store clerk. The store clerk didn't even have time to solve the dispute with words before he was executed for $100. I am the first line of defense for my own safety, why would I use anything but the most useful tool to protect myself, especially knowing that the most dangerous person I could face will have also have a gun?
Your arguments against guns basically tell me that I should die whenever some crazy person decides I should, and I should be prevented from taking reasonable measures to save my own life. I happen to believe it is a life worth keeping.
Criminals carry instant murder machines. I carry an instant life-saving machine. Same shit.
Your arguments against guns basically tell me that I should die whenever some crazy person decides I should, and I should be prevented from taking reasonable measures to save my own life. I happen to believe it is a life worth keeping.
Criminals carry instant murder machines. I carry an instant life-saving machine. Same shit.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG