At 5/30/07 01:05 PM, Elfer wrote:
Are you saying that the UN just purposely made up statistics? I think if there was actual bias, you'd be able to find it in the methodology, rather than just saying "I trust nothing from the UN because they often say things I don't like"
Sigh, Elfer, I'd expect better from you.
I forget who I was mocking, but their entire basis to my argument was to call bias and ignore it.
So I did the same to them.
That I have a BASIS for my argument as UN studies tend to actually be biased is irrelevant.
The point I was trying to make is what's important.
At 6/2/07 11:43 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:
Cultural changes are being legislated all the time: after all, smoking is being erradicated at present, and certainly that is a huge cultural shift for Scotland and Ireland (it doesn't come into force in England until July), and that hasn't been hard.
To say nothing of whether this is good for soceity or not...
But thie idea of "cultural differences" doesn't add up, as the UK has 20% of the US population and hundreds of years of history at war with (among others) the French, and each other (mainly England vs Scotland), on top of our Celtic roots, Viking and Roman invasions and a Civil War or two, yet we just aren't killing each other at rate that 0.01% of our population is gunned down each year (as opposed to the 0.0001% in the UK - there's a percentage to hold up when discussing gun crime rates, WolvenBear).
So you say cultural differences can't explain anything, and then point to raw numbers again.
I'm changing my opinion back...you're just plain stupid.
I mean hell, we fought a war over STAMPS.
If you look at it state by state as it doesn't match up with the population: California is top in both, but Kentucky is notably ahead of Massachusetts despite having 2m less population, for example.
AGAIN, cultural differences. You failed public school didn't you?
I say the Australian model (hinted at earlier) works: every gun has to have a license, and a legitimate reason for ownership - and "self defence" isn't one of them. Face it, if a wannabe gang banger walked inmto a gun store and said he wanted a Gloc for pest control, he'd be shown the door.
I can show you three examples from Australia in the past month that shows "gun confiscation" failed.
At 6/3/07 11:31 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:
I know, a lot more people die from other peoples' bullets than their own, a complete 180 of the smoking risks...
Just to be a dick...
Cause liberals love Wikipedia....
The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004.
The source for that is the CDC.
Again, you don't know half the hell what you're talking about.
Europe, Liberal? Your argument comes crashing down around your ears on that point - most countries in Europe have conservativ (upper or lower case C) governments and certainly attitudes.
Most European gov'ts are far more socialistic (see:liberal) than America.
Funny, when handguns were banned in 1997, we did so (apart from the IRA, who seem happy to hold onto their guns no matter how many times they're asked nicely to, you know, give them up - or how many times they promised they'd disarm).
OH MY GOD.
CRIMINALS REFUSE TO DISARM!
You realize how much this kills your argument right?
I see you didn't actually answer why some states have inflated gun deaths compared to their populations. Strange, that.
And you never answer why the "fact that England has less gun deaths than the US" has nothing to do with banning guns, as the per capita ratios were much farther apart in 1197 than they are now.
At 6/3/07 04:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
I see no reason to believe that (a.) a rampaging government would come into power here and (b.) that any action we as individuals take would stop it (it only worked in "Red Dawn"). Not to say that b means that you shouldn't fight an oppressive government, but once a dictatorship is in power, well, yeah.
A) The government would NEVER try to harm us.
b) If they did, what could we do to stop them? (Especially now, that they nicely have all our guns.)
Again, the gun control lobby comes to two points.
1) Why do you need a rocket launcher to kill raccoons?
2) What good is that pistol going to do against a tank?
At 6/3/07 04:43 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
30,000 gun deaths per year.
And in my link 16000 of them are suicides. That deflates your number. Not even talking about the remainer...your number is cut in half.
At 6/6/07 10:11 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:
Please, most of Europe has a grudge against each other (or, in England's case, we just hate everyone:
Ah, back to throwing around claims of "ignorance" again, are we? Typical tactic of a hateful sack of gibberish...
(Fuck I have nothing.) "You sir...hate black people!" (Yea that got him. Heh.)
Now, you say places have different culture, which I said already doesn't stand up as a blanket explanation, because that's simplicism to the Nth degree. You reel off a list of reasons (more violent, poorer, ethnic lines etc.), yet Alabama, a poor, gun-toting, intolerant state is in 20th position, while South Carolina is in 19th - but they prefer to tie blacks to the back of their pick up truckand drag them to death there, so that may have affected their statistics somewhat.
Really? Considering there has been ONE such death (to my knowledge) in the US in my lifetime, I'd like to see your stats that S.C. does that ALL THE TIME. You bigot.