im definitely unfounded. definitely misguided. like all the leaders of those stated countries which post lower murder rates then the US every year. critical difference. gun control.

heres the link you wanted cutie
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit _fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

and some more, although id say these arent as concrete.

developed nations unsurprised, due to american 'right to arms' condoning gun acceptability.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601871.html

Gun Control Works;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070612/
sc_livescience/gunshowregulationsworkstudyfin ds

Virginia Tech Father’s Plea: Stricter Gun Laws, Better Gun legislation
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_re_
us/virginia_tech_mental_health_2;_ylt=Apspf5V cNyvwR0x3mX068Z1GR4sA

66% murders in US commited by Guns
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

15 Gun Manufacturers sued for negligence, responsible for shootings
http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/11/gun.suit.04/

how do you propose everybody having guns works? someone shoots at you you shoot back we go wicked wild west?

if they outlaw guns i'll go postal on who evers responsable....but first i'd need a class-2 destruction device which could be a DAO-12 "Striker" or a Pancor JackHammer...either way i'd go postal even if i'd have to use a tomohawk or a 4.6mm pistol dont outlaw guns!

At 6/22/07 07:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Non-Americans don't have US constitutional rights you silly bitch.

Ever heard of international law? The U.N.? The Geneva Convention? Basic human decency?

At 6/22/07 10:45 PM, Tal-con wrote:

Also, most gun deaths are committed with the hand gun, amirite?

"During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

And

"In 2005, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime .htm)

At 6/22/07 12:53 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Ah, yes, the well known academic source Beast Enterprises.

Google Gary Kleck, PhD and Professor of Criminology at FSU. Furthermore, on this issue it is not wise to attack the source of any study because it is so politically charged. The New England Journal of Medicine is a highly respected medical journal, however its editorial staff has long made it known that it has an anti-gun bias. The same goes for the AMA. Therefore, their credibility on this issue is about as good as that of the NRA or the Beast Enterprises link I posted that had an interview with a college professor.

On the other hand, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded "that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates." No effect. Ok, I can buy that. Positive effect? Highly improbable, they say.

So? So much of the liberal and pro-gun control arguments are based on faulty logic and a "common sense" approach rather than deal with statistics that show your reasoning to be in error.

And a study that I've repeatedly cited that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, stated, "Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property." And "A minority of home invasion crimes result in injury. Measures that increase the difficulty of forced entry or enhance the likelihood of detection could be useful to prevent these crimes. Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose. "

Another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that, and I quote: " Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

And see here is your problem. You are citing a source that comes from a group of researchers who are out of their depth. Yes, Doctors know how to conduct medical/biological/chemical research. They are trained for that. However, sociological/criminological research is out of their depth. I would trust a PhD in Criminology to better analyze crime data than a psychiatrist. I mean would you go to a history professor to diagnose a disease?

At 6/22/07 10:35 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 6/22/07 07:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Non-Americans don't have US constitutional rights you silly bitch.

Ever heard of international law? The U.N.? The Geneva Convention? Basic human decency?

Actually International law does not exist. The term "international law" refers to a system of traditions and treaties that have no coercive power beyond the willingness of the signatory nations to follow through with the provisions of said traditions/treaties. You see the international community is one of anarchy, where nations act solely in their best interest and if a treaty no longer protects these interests then countries can and often end up simply ignoring them. But I digress, this is about gun control and I do not want to start a debate on international relations theory...

Furthermore, the Geneva Convention would not apply here...nor would the UN.

However, basic human decency does have a place. That means that we as a "democratic" (the Founding Fathers never intended us to be a Democracy, but rather a Republic that safeguarded the liberty of the individuals) modern industrial country has a duty and responsibility to protect the basic human rights of ALL people within our borders regardless of national allegiance. However, that does NOT mean that we should grant them the full rights of a US citizen. (ie: we can deny them the right to vote or buy/carry weapons.)

A main reason America has a higher incidence of gun crime than other countries is because of our drug problem. The conflicts that gangs have with police and rival gangs have created a strong market for the illegal traffic of firearms. Also we have a practically unguardable border with Mexico as well as a large portion of the east coast that we don't have the manpower to monitor through which guns and drugs can be smuggled.

This fact also explains why a ban on guns would do nothing to deter gun crime in America. Even if law abiding citizens surrendered their right to bear arms, the armed criminals have no incentive to do so. They have drug profits to protect. They have people to rob. The fact that it is currently illegal for most of these people to have guns has had no effect on their decision to arm themselves. If we inflate an already significant black market with a ban on guns, we'll see an increase of violence in order to protect that market.
in short America =/= Canada, UK, Germany, Switzerland, ect.

At 6/22/07 10:45 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/21/07 10:22 PM, Proteas wrote: Yes, let's focus our efforts on curbing the ability of the public at large from getting so called "assault weapons" and focus on getting them the much kinder, gentler, hunting rifle

We go from a small handheld weapon used spray a large amount of ammunition at short range, more for the purpose of INJURING people than KILLING them, to a weapon specifically designed to kill...

Your sarcasm is not appreciated.

He's not being sarcastic but rather accurate. A assault rifle such as the AK-47 is smaller (even with a non-folding stock) than most hunting rifles. And it is handheld. Furthermore it is designed to "spray and pray" (in full-auto mode only...and thus the military models and not the civilian clones) using ammunition that is less dangerous than either handgun ammo (where jacketed hollow points are easily obtained) or hunting ammo (where jacketed hollow points are even more the norm than in handgun ammo).

Even with their shorter length an AK-47 w/folding stock is difficult to conceal and heavier, making it ineffective as a tool of the criminal.

Also, most gun deaths are committed with the hand gun, amirite? It's very easy to conceal a handgun, not so much with a rifle. If you try to take a hunting rifle into, say, a College campus, someone is going to notice.

Thank you for agreeing with us!

Also, most gun deaths are committed with the hand gun, amirite?

"During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

Okay, since 13 (or 15) plus 2 equals either 15 or 17 I think it is safe to assume that this statistic is a survey of 100% of inmates. Which means 83-85% of the inmates did not commit crime with any type of firearm.

This only proves my point that the AWB is a meaningless piece of failed legislation.

"In 2005, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime .htm)

So:
32% of all murders were committed with a weapon other than a firearm.
58% of all robberies were committed without a firearm.
79% of al aggravated assults (as reported to police) were committed without a firearm.

"Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005." (Your source.)

Hmmm...seems that when it comes to violence the US has some issues to deal with that has nothing to do with guns.

"The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show
that in 1993 57% of all murders were committed
with handguns, 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns,
and 5% with firearms where the type was unknown."

Just a snapshot of crime here...but this is a pretty standard spread regardless of year. I wonder what kind of gun criminals prefer. Let's see if the source I just pulled this from has anything else to say:

"Research by Wright and Rossi in the 1980's found
that most criminals prefer guns that are easily
concealable, large caliber, and well made. Their
studies also found that the handguns used by the
felons interviewed were similar to the handguns
available to the general public except that the
criminals preferred larger caliber guns."

SOURCE (not the same report, but same organization as yours Illogical!)

Thank you for proving my point and doing the leg work for me!

Highlyillogical,

I've done some research into how Norinco, Colt and others got around the AWB of 1994.

You see the law stated that to fit the definition of what an assault weapon was: it had to accept detachable (no mention of capacity) AND THEN it had to have TWO of the following features:

1) Ability to accept high-capacity magazines.
2) Pistol grip.
3) Bayonet lug.
4) Grenade launcher (not what you think).
5) Flash suppressor.
6) Folding stock.

For example if a gun had a detachable magazine and a grenade launcher it was not considered an assault rifle. (NOTE: a grenade launcher here most commonly refers to a barrel attachment that fires modified hand grenades that are not available to the public, and has not been documented as being used in crime. It is more of a cosmetic feature.)

However, the feature most prized by legitimate and responsible gun owners was the high capacity magazines. These make shooting more fun and economical in that if you were at a range you did not have to spend time re-loading. This means more time for shooting, and if you have to pay by the time you spend there it means you are saving money.

However, a 30rd mag for an AK-47 adds weight and makes it unweildy in close quarters where you have to be able to manuever. Thus even a hi-cap mag is detrimental to committing crime.

As long as it looked liked this, an AK-47 could legally be purchased under the 1994 AWB. (Did I mention it was a failure?)

At 6/21/07 05:40 PM, JakeHero wrote:

And I repeat, using a gun is cowardly

And I repeat, if it is cowardly why don't you take on fifteen people with just your fist?

Hang on - once again you go back to the ghetto kid thing, while simultaniously implying it's OK to commit an act of mass murder, which gunning down 15 ghetto kids would be, is acceptible?

How did we get from "you'd want to take apart a guy who raped and murdered your family with your bare hands" to some shit about a gang of ghetto kids who, at the current rate, have knives and came up behind you in the dark?

In this country, your average burglar can't get a handgun because they're banned,

And your professional burglar will want to add murder to their sentence, which is 25 years on top of the 10 they'll get...why? Don't be so fucking stupid.

Um, I'm pretty sure if they have a gun the person, whose house they're robbing, would be powerless to stop them?

Carrying a concealed weapon is another thing on your record, by the way (or having one to begin with here). Once again, I doubt any burglar would want to have extra charges bumped onto his sentence if he gets caught.

And, once again, in dumbass-friendly type: WHY WOULD ANY SELF-RESPECTING BURGLAR WANT TO HAVE MURDER ADDED TO THEIR CHARGE SHEET?

Apart fropm anything else, firing the gun would alert the entire fucking neighbourhood - that's a REALLY bright way to avoid detection, isn't it?

It's called being afraid as they have been detected, which if you're a criminal you don't particularly want as it leads to arrest, sentencing, prison...you get the idea? Why hang around and risk being identified when you can run for it?

And I'll say the samething: they will still be some that are willing to fight and hurt people if the house has something that robber wants. What's so fucking hard about that to understand?

Officer: "Can you identify the person that broke into your house and assaulted you?"
Victim: "Yes."

Are you still caught up on the whole criminals-not-wanting-to-be-identified deal? Jesus, don't ever take to the life of crime, you wouldn't last a week...

Is basic psychology somehow above you?

And is not being a pompous, little twat beyond your ability?

"Pompous little twat"? HA!

If anyone's being pompous, it's the person who believes in the gun nut's wet dream of all criminals having guns and they think that raping and murdering your family is their "bonus" and continues to perpetuate it despite logic being thrown at them from all directions.

That also goes for thew "little twat" part, by the way.

Please, stop regurgitating pro-gun apologistic wet dreams.

Please quit pelting me with your hubris and hypothetical bullshit.

" if it is cowardly why don't you take on fifteen people with just your fist?"
"And I'll say the samething: they will still be some that are willing to fight and hurt people if the house has something that robber wants."

You get the idea...

No, you're arguing because you can hit reply, despite having nothing to say and/or add. Big difference.

Now you're starting to entertain me. You chide me for not adding anything new, but all you're doing is A) Dedicating a post to attack me and B) Repeating the same liners as if frequency will make them right all of a sudden.

I'm dedicating the post to attacking the usual bullshit that happens to be getting splurged out, by you. It's called the notion that there's no point in bothering to be rational with irrational, incoherant mumblings.

To the point I won't insult the mods by repeating the rest of "your" "argument", because there's better things to do than watch you try and act clever.

At 6/22/07 08:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Guns kill people. Get rid of guns, you get rid of part of the problem.

1) It's a constitutional right to own guns. Getting rid of legal ownership would void the constitution and negate a founding principle our country.

Yes, as long as you are part of a militia and it is in the interest of the security of the Free State...

My God, we're back to this again?

2) Cars kill people, motorcycles kill people. They kill ALOT more people than guns do in the US so should we get rid of guns too?

Depends, when was the last time somebody cold-bloodedly ran over 30 people on their college campus?

My God, we're back to this again?

3) By "getting rid" of guns you're implying banning guns... which wouldn't get rid of guns, it would only get rid of legal ownership, which AS I PROVED prevents more crime than it causes.

You'll find that, by making guns harder to come by, your two-bit wannabe gangster or nickle & dime burglar won't be able to get their hands on a weapon, meaning they'll be less likely to gun somebody down by intent or by accident.

My God, we're back to this again?

4) We can't force other countries to stop producing guns, we can't prevent all guns from being smuggled into our country. We can't find and destroy all the guns that are in our country right now that are unaccounted for. Therefore "getting rid of guns" will only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while the people who ACTUALLY CAUSE THE GUN VIOLENCE would obey no such law. Gun violence would actually go up because criminals would have defenseless citizens as prey.

I hate to point it out, but if guns are illegal, OWNING ONE WILL BE A VIOLATION OF GUN LAWS. If anything, you can haul in any potential murderer/mugger/whatever just because they have a gun on them, rather then wait for them to be a convicted murderer/mugger/whatever.

5) For someone who accuses Bush of being Nazi-esque, it's odd for you to support an ENTIRELY intrusive government act, against the constitution, thus preventing the US from maintaining its goal of being a country that cannot be taken over by a tyrant or foreign occupier. You know that every single genocide, every single massive government-sponsored murder, every single totalitarian state in the world enforced gun control before they took power?

The US has a fucking great big ocean on each side of it, meaning that any invader will have to be:
a.) Canada.
b.) Mexico.
c.) Some other SOuth American nation coming through Mexico.

Anything else would involve a flotilla of ships steaming into American waters, at which point they are the responsibility of the navy and air force to turn back, not Dave the Plumber in Delaware with his .44 he got after watching Dirty Harry made him feel funny.

My God, we're back to this again?

Please, pro-gunner...get an argument.

At 6/22/07 07:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

That doesn't prove them wrong. There are MANY factors that cause violence, gun laws are only a small part of it.

Question:

Can you have gun violence without guns?

At 6/23/07 01:31 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Question:

Can you have gun violence without guns?

Logically speaking, no. But when you look at the facts, much of the United Kingdom "doesn't have guns" and yet they do have gun violence there, which runs counter to the whole ideology that if you get rid of guns then gun crime will in fact disappear into the ether...

gun control doesnt work its a proven fact and Im a member of the NRA (National Rifleman Association) and they have been sending pettitions and news letters on this subject

At 6/23/07 01:50 PM, Proteas wrote:
Logically speaking, no. But when you look at the facts, much of the United Kingdom "doesn't have guns" and yet they do have gun violence there, which runs counter to the whole ideology that if you get rid of guns then gun crime will in fact disappear into the ether...

Yes, to the grand total off 78 deaths per year, and those can be placed within four postal districts - three of those in London. Can you say the same of the US?

Now, why aren't you considering South Africa? When guns became universally available in the mid 90's, the shooting rate went through the roof because a quick, easy (and cowardly) way to kill people was now available to all, so now all those messy and time consuming stabbings could cease.

At 6/23/07 02:35 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Yes, to the grand total off 78 deaths per year, and those can be placed within four postal districts - three of those in London. Can you say the same of the US?

No, but then again I'm not the one guilty of magical thinking in this instance, either.

Now, why aren't you considering South Africa? When guns became universally available in the mid 90's, the shooting rate went through the roof because a quick, easy (and cowardly) way to kill people was now available to all, so now all those messy and time consuming stabbings could cease.

Because it's a third world country and the NRA isn't there to teach proper gun ownership?

Hm... would you look at that, all this wasted effort on why the United States needs gun control and it turns out that South Africa is at the top of the heap when it comes to the problem of gun violence. Maybe we should have an assload of repetitive threads debating wether or not THEY need gun control measures in the hopes it will magically do something to curve that crime rate.

At 6/23/07 02:54 PM, Proteas wrote: Hm... would you look at that, all this wasted effort on why the United States needs gun control and it turns out that South Africa is at the top of the heap when it comes to the problem of gun violence. Maybe we should have an assload of repetitive threads debating wether or not THEY need gun control measures in the hopes it will magically do something to curve that crime rate.

Well done, Proteas, you managed to post the wrong site: this is the one I happen to have already posted.

Note the US is at #8 - amidst a lot of third world nations without the NRA to teach them resposible gun control, I believe...

At 6/23/07 03:07 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Well done, Proteas, you managed to post the wrong site: this is the one I happen to have already posted.

There's actually four different pages on NationMaster dedicated to gun statistics by country, my friend. I guess the only "wrong" page you link to is the one that disagrees with what you're predisposed political inclinations are.

But hey, at least both our pages agree; South Africa is a blood drenched shit hole. More worth of a gun control debate than the United States.

Oh that's right, if we did thatt, you wouldn't be able to bash the United States. A favorite past time, I suppose?

Note the US is at #8 - amidst a lot of third world nations without the NRA to teach them resposible gun control, I believe...

Case in point. >:-D~

At 6/23/07 01:50 PM, Proteas wrote:

Logically speaking, no. But when you look at the facts, much of the United Kingdom "doesn't have guns" and yet they do have gun violence there, which runs counter to the whole ideology that if you get rid of guns then gun crime will in fact disappear into the ether...

Gun violence is inevitable in a society where any guns exist. However, they've got less gun violence per 100,000 than we do, and that's not due to cultural factors, but to their gun control. After all, if it was cultural factors that allowed for gun posessison, the UK would be up there, for their Bill of Rights of 1689 made weapons ownership legal to the same extent that our constitution did, allowing for their bill made it legal for protestant males, while ours, originally, only made it legal for white males.

At 6/23/07 03:40 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: After all, if it was cultural factors that allowed for gun posessison, the UK would be up there, for their Bill of Rights of 1689 made weapons ownership legal to the same extent that our constitution did, allowing for their bill made it legal for protestant males, while ours, originally, only made it legal for white males.

They also didn't have a national rifle association backing up said right to keep and bare arms, or anything even resembling the gun culture of the united states today. You'd be hard pressed to try and even introduce such regulations here in the states and even get them past debate in the house.

Yes we do every day guns are sold and no one keeps track of why they are bought and how they are used and a right to bear arms is our legal right but why do you need a such weapons I mean I understand that if you one day think that some one is going to run into your house and try to shoot you then its ok. but is that really gonna happen?

And the UK has less gun crime per capita than we do...they have very few gun murders as is.

You're entirely right, though.

Gun control means less gun crime, that's a fact.

And the UK has less gun crime per capita than we do...they have very few gun murders as is.

The UK has less gun crime per capita because it has less crime per capita all the way around. You can't compare the country and only use gun laws as variables, that is truly retarded.

The debate was on Gun Laws; not so retarded to argue about gun laws being responsible. He also never denied other variables existed simply did a comparison. That is truly immature name-calling.

The UK is an island and therefore smuggling into the UK is much harder. They have less illegal immigrants, they have less minorities who statistically commit more crime

Hungary, Germany, Austria effectively most of Central Europe have lower firearm murders. These countries have stringent gun control laws and aren't islands.

UK is facing significant problems with illegal immigration much like the US is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/463727 3.stm

they have less of their population dwelling in urban areas that statistically have higher crime rates, they have a whole slew of factors that makes them statistically less likely to have crime, and gun crime.

Australia = Most Urbanized country in the world. There goes that argument.
Please list other factors, as opposed to just claiming they exist.

If we adopted their laws, that wouldn't mean we would have the same gun violence rate. In fact, I already proved that if we adopted their gun control policies we would have MORE crime.

True it wouldn't necessarily mean that. and no you didn't prove that at all. You used state-by-state comparisons. The UK didn't outlaw guns on a state-by-state basis. They outlawed gun posession nationwide.

Why did gun crime go up by a VERY high rate in the UK after they enacted TIGHTER gun control??? Hmm? That by itself proves gun control doesn't mean less gun crime. That proves that other factors contribute to it.

Other factors contribute, agreed. But that doesn't absolve guns from being part of the problem. Its much easier for you in a fit of rage to pull the trigger of a gun then it is for you to walk up to the instigator of said violence and stab them. It is also much more likely that they'll be able to run away.

Gun Crime rate goes down in London, same year, same study
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/27 69569.stm

US Gun crime 66%
UK Gun crime: 35%
See above link, i linked to the us statistic in another post.
Also, read: Central Europe, Australia. You won’t see the same statistic.

Hmm... could it be ethnicity, socio-economic factors, geography, amount of urban vs. rural habitation etc..?

Agreed.
However socio-economic factors and ethnicity are underlying factors in drug abuse. You also made the argument earlier "its impossible to stop illegal gun trafficking" Its also impossible to prevent drug trafficking. You insinuated we should maintain the legality of guns because its impossible to stem illegal trafficking of it. Do you propose we legalize drug trafficking and drug selling? Going down hard on gun trafficking could very well make it unprofitable and fruitless to pursue such a venture seeing as how drugs can be self-produced and sold at higher margins whereas guns need to be purchased at much higher prices.

Also, outlawing drugs has made it difficult to purchase. You either purchase it because you’re extremely interested in it enough to search for dealers or because you’re addicted to it. Conversely somebody would only buy a gun with a strong intent to kill. This is where the system comes in. Improve mental health, educate the youth out of a carefree gun culture, continue to breakdown racial tension and inequalities. Call me crazy but perhaps this is why gun control is working in other countries. Teenagers and degenerate 20s can't parade around claiming they're part of crips or bloods and start shooting each other for the sake of killing. The Football riots you see all the time in the UK and Europe, The Parisian riots last year, the Cronulla riots in 2005 didn’t end up becoming perpetual gang wars, massacres and bloodbath orgies because of one thing. Angry people had no access to guns therefore angry people could not shoot. Plenty of people have died and many killers are/ were remorseful claiming they weren't thinking or that it was as i said, a moment of anger.

:“Cars and Bikes kill people too should we outlaw them?”

That was something you said in an earlier post. Had to repost it for a laugh. That was an incredibly fucking stupid analogy and i almost choked laughing when I first saw it.

I'll consider making a reply to your other post. But I'm finding it hard to justify. That post was just blatantly stupid and immature yet again. If you consider retorting this post, do so in a civil manner.

At 6/23/07 03:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/23/07 03:07 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Well done, Proteas, you managed to post the wrong site: this is the one I happen to have already posted.

There's actually four different pages on NationMaster dedicated to gun statistics by country, my friend. I guess the only "wrong" page you link to is the one that disagrees with what you're predisposed political inclinations are.

Read the title, Proteas.
Yours: Gun violence > Homicides > Overall homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. by country
Mine: Gun violence > Homicides > Firearm homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. by country

Note mine was specific to the firearm homicide rate, yours is the overall homicide rate. There's a difference - that being the Ukrainians are a tad more creative than Columbians when it comes to murdering people.

A bit of quick math would indicate gun homicides make up 1/3 of the US murder rate, over 1/3 in South Africa, and over half in Columbia. More notably, they make up 3/4 of all murders in Thailand.

But hey, at least both our pages agree; South Africa is a blood drenched shit hole. More worth of a gun control debate than the United States.

The US is the only First World nation in the top ten - for the supposed First Nation (let alone a First World Nation), that is not a place to be. The US is also the only First World nation in the top 20 of your link, again not somewhere you want to place.

Still, it holes all this crap about the UK being a hotbed of being shot - it isn't placed on either.

Oh that's right, if we did thatt, you wouldn't be able to bash the United States. A favorite past time, I suppose?

AAAAAAAAAAND that's the level, is it?

Note the US is at #8 - amidst a lot of third world nations without the NRA to teach them resposible gun control, I believe...

Case in point. >:-D~

You said the others didn't have the NRA to teach them about gun ownership, yet the US has them and they're doing quite well at being irrisponsible with the things. Sorry.

At 6/24/07 04:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
That depends on how you interpret it.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd amendment entitles Americans to two things, a well regulated militia, as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Two separate yet related things.

I interpret it as "If you're a member of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of the Free State, you can have a gun. If you aren't, you can't."

It's a condition, like your mother saying "When you've done your chores, you can play video games."

See, that is nothing but an appeal to emotion. 32 people were killed, it was a tragedy, but statistically it was a fluke, and statistically, many things kill a lot more people than guns do. So if you want to ban guns entirely, besides not even lowering gun violence, you're only addressing a tiny fraction of the unnatural deaths in the US.

Ah, that sentence again...

Wait..."statistically it was a fluke"?

Right, were the 21 gunned down in a McDonalds by James Huberty (armed with an Uzi semi-auto, a pump-action Winchester, and a 9mm Browning) a statistical fluke, or bad shooting?

Also, why do you seem intent to duck the issue - plenty of people are killed in unnatural accidents, but plenty are killed by design by some gun-toting soon-to-be murderer with the Constitutional right to have the weapon he's about to discharge in their general direction.

And how is the deaths of 15,000 people addressing "a tiny number" of unnatural deaths?

Per 100,000, 9.1 Americans are murdered.
Per 100,000, 3.6 Americans are shot to death.

That's over a third of all murders in the US being directly linked to guns. I dread to think what you consider tyo be a large quantity if 39.56% is considered "a tiny fraction."

Gangsters and burglars tend to be criminals before they use guns, therefore making LEGAL gun ownership more difficult isn't going to prevent them from getting guns. Seriously, use your fucking brain for once. The majority of crimes with firearms are committed by people who CANNOT LEGALLY PURCHASE OR OWN A FIREARM, and therefore making LEGAL ownership more difficult after we ALREADY bar criminals from attaining them, does NOTHING to target gun crime! All it does is target people who obey the law anyway, and can purchase guns legally and therefore are statistically much less likely to use guns in crime, and statistically prevent more crime than they commit.

So ILLEGAL gun ownership won't make it more difficult for them to own a gun, due to the rise in the black market price overnight (which will put it beyond the reach of a nickle and dime robber or two-bit wannabe gangster as they won't have the money to hand).

Now, here's a list of people that could legall use a firearm:
James Huberty
Charles Whitman
Robyn Anderson (supplier of Harris & Klebold)
Thomas Hamilton
Michael Ryan
Ronald DeFeo
Patrick "Godfather of the term 'Going Postal' Sherrill
David Berkowitz
Aileen Wournos

All of them (among numerous others I could list) are responsible for murdering large numbers of people using a firearm (Berkowitz and Wuornos being serial killers - and not the only ones to use a gun as their main weapon), and none wer eineligible for purchasing guns by any means - USE YOUR BRAIN.

And, once again, it's hard to prevent criminals buying guns if there are plenty out there being sold in pawn shops which are less stringent when it comes to background checks, or in the case of Cho easily available on fucking eBay.

Your flawed logic actually saddens me. Since it is ALREADY a violation of the law for criminals to have firearms, its NOT GOING TO LESSEN THE GUN CRIME WE ALREADY HAVE. You make absolutely no fucking sense.

Sure I do - make it illegal to own a gun before they can become a criminal with it. Is it rocket science?

"Make legal ownership illegal, even though legal ownership isn't the cause, but illegal ownership by criminals who won't heed new laws IS the cause."

And a marketplace flooded with guns (legally or illegally) of course ISN'T the cause...

You never know what is going to have politically in the future. It's not just to protect you from an invader, it is also from a future potential tyrant, or other internal threats (ahem Re Conquista). It's kind of scary knowing that the tens of millions of illegal immigrants coming to your country don't even believe it rightfully belongs to you hmm? Of course, you'd know nothing about such a concern because you're one of those typical people that ignore history and its trends and instead dictate your views on your very false sense of "oh that would never happen"

Alright, if the threat does come from within, I have one thing to say on that: it was pretty stupid to arm them by holding up the Second Amendment all this time, wasn't it?

Sorry, is that making too much sense? Stop the violent uprising from within: don't arm them so willingly. Gee, you'll look pretty damn stupid when they march on Washington, rifles in one hand, recepit in the other.

And you want to label people that make sense as delusional while you make out somehow a massive invading force will swim to the US? Please, for the love of God, get an argument.

At 6/23/07 10:34 PM, Tal-con wrote: That is sarcasm, and anyone who says otherwise is either stupid, or lying.

I was being sarcastic in order to drive home the point I was making, tal-con. That's my style, it and it always has been.

A assault rifle such as the AK-47 is smaller (even with a non-folding stock) than most hunting rifles. And it is handheld. Furthermore it is designed to "spray and pray" (in full-auto mode only...and thus the military models and not the civilian clones) using ammunition that is less dangerous than either handgun ammo (where jacketed hollow points are easily obtained) or hunting ammo (where jacketed hollow points are even more the norm than in handgun ammo).

Spray and pray doesn't work as an effective means of killing people, I've already shown that with the little breakdown I made a while back of the Columbine and V-Tech shootings. The point is that those who are in favor of gun control for so called "assault weapons" are only doing so based on the idea that they are inherintly more dangerous than hunting weapons which are purposely designed to KILL WITH AS FEW SHOTS AS NEEDED.

At 6/24/07 11:44 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: The US is the only First World nation in the top ten - for the supposed First Nation (let alone a First World Nation), that is not a place to be. The US is also the only First World nation in the top 20 of your link, again not somewhere you want to place.

And it's rhetoric like this that leads me to believe that you're only goal here is bash the United States. Why? Because if you were really wanted to present yourself as a humanitarian that was concerned about gun violence in this world, you would be after the 8 or 19 or however many other countries there are in front of us instead of sitting here nitpicking what WE'RE doing wrong.

Does it bother me that we're that high on the list? No, not at all. Because statiscally speaking, I'm more likely to die from other "un-natural" causes than I am to be shot death as the average gun control proponent would have me believe.

We may be up there on the list, but we're no Columbia or South Africa and you fucking know it.

At 6/24/07 12:20 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: I interpret it as "If you're a member of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of the Free State, you can have a gun. If you aren't, you can't."

If you're interpretation of the 2nd amendment carried any weight at all, that's the way it would have been applied after it was ratified over 200 years ago. It's as simple as that.

And, once again, it's hard to prevent criminals buying guns if there are plenty out there being sold in pawn shops which are less stringent when it comes to background checks, or in the case of Cho easily available on fucking eBay.

Show me on ebay where you can buy a firearm.

Go on, I'll wait.

At 6/24/07 01:48 PM, Proteas wrote:

And it's rhetoric like this that leads me to believe that you're only goal here is bash the United States. Why? Because if you were really wanted to present yourself as a humanitarian that was concerned about gun violence in this world, you would be after the 8 or 19 or however many other countries there are in front of us instead of sitting here nitpicking what WE'RE doing wrong.

Christ on a bike, now I'm unAmerican because I point out that you're good at shooting at each other, yet seem to be incapable of taking any responsibiluty for it - which is also another great big chunk of the pronlem.

If yoiu weren't so busy pointing and shouting "COMMUNIST!!!" at the top of your lungs (or whatever), the argument remains - the US is the only First World nation in those lists with a large murder rate, and a large gun-related murder rate, while the rest are crime-ridden Third World nations with a myriad of their own problems to deal with (usually gross poverty, endemic corruption throughout the system, or being a major drug producer).

The US isn't one of these, yet they have a damn high proportion of their populace being murdered, and nearly 40% of that is by using a gun. And you want to make out I have an issue here? I'm not living in some deluded state that ha sme accuse those who bring it up of hating America - if anything, I just hate the people who live there that come up with bullshit like that.

But that counts for any country, really. That makes me UnAssholian. Can I become the Joe McCarthay of The House of UnAssholian Activity from this?

What the US is doing wrong is looking the other way. What the US is doing is misrepresenting their own Constitution. What the US is doing is selling sa lot of guns to a lot of people, and producing a five-figure bodycount every year.

Is this sinking in yet?

Does it bother me that we're that high on the list? No, not at all. Because statiscally speaking, I'm more likely to die from other "un-natural" causes than I am to be shot death as the average gun control proponent would have me believe.

I already did the math on this: damn near 40% of the homicides on your list correlates to gun-related crime.

40%

Does that figure not stick out?

We may be up there on the list, but we're no Columbia or South Africa and you fucking know it.

Yes, you're a First World nation that doesn't produce a large proportion of the world's cocaine or conflict diamonds, that doesn't have huge numbers of the population living in abject poverty, that doesn't have an endemic corruption from top to bottom (OK, you are in that respect).

So, why are they shooting at each other? Why do so many people snap and go on killing rampages? Why is it they can accept they have a gun problem in South Africa and Columbia that needs to be addressed, but the US can't - or won't?

Of course, that no prominent American politician wants to risk losing their pro-gun voters, so won't engage in any dialogue on the subject at all is, frankly, pathetic. How about taking a risk, speaking out, and if their approval rating shoots trhough the roof, that would be a start.

Shame that, with an election coming up, nobody will risk it. But then again, isn't that why every President these days owns a cat and a dog, wary of alienating any potential voter?

Yes, I fucking know you aren't South Africa or Columbia, but you don't seem to know that you aren't some kind of Nirvana where Everything's OK.

lol at cellardoor convinced that his opinion is the word of the lord.
quoting only to promote his arguments rather then addressing some legitimate points made.
resorting to name-calling and making the dogmatic declaration that he is infinitely right.
suggesting hes proved everything when all hes done was gather a bunch of statistics to back his arguments. much like several people have also presented their arguments, all in favor of gun prohibition.

not realizing the irony of calling other people idiotic and emotional when his entire post is made up of "youre an idiot" "youre blessed with crazy lefty hippy views" and the "im right youre wrong, youre just fucking stupid cause you dont see the world the way i do" and not proving any of these pathetic immature claims or realizing the irony in it.

its worthless to argue against you because youre 'blessed with the idiotic, crazy rightist views' if you will. you seem to enjoy calling people names and failing to cite sources that back up how youve proved everything to be divinely right. whilst ignoring exactly all the sources others cite or simply calling them "irrelevant" or "stupid" when yours are incontextual and retarded in itself. you didnt prove shit as i once said. you compared on a state by state basis and went on to say it was irrelevant on a national scale.

its true that statistically blacks commit more crimes then whites and asians. you never specified that the uk minority was asian vs u.s blacks until later, so feel free to reflect on how much of a fucking spastic you are here for claiming im an idiot when you hadnt specified ethnicities. NOR did i even mention this :]. i said that the UK was having a crises with illegal immigration much akin to the US which was one of your arguments. claiming this is irrelevant because "u.s crises is worst" is stupid. The majority of these illegal immigrants are mexicans simply working below minimum wage for a living. 7 illegal immigrants for every 300 residents. 1 illegal immigrant for every 120 residents. (dont have my calculator on me).

Continue to ignore this. Central Europe = Not an Island. Gun Smuggling resulting to inflated murder rates? No.
Urbanization in Australia has not resulted in drastically higher crime rates. therefore Australia can be argued as "an island" the point was urbanization resulting in crime. You cannot disprove it by claiming its an island fucking spastic. Grow up a little bit and present your arguments properly we're not in grade school.

Disprove the Switzerland explanation. Most Swiss murders are committed at home. They leave their rifles at home, rather then carry it around with them (for obvious reasons). Coincedence much?

Now whereas most Swiss associate their guns with a servitude to the upholding of their state and have a comprehensive screening process because of the easy accesibility in the u.s any 'ice-t', crips or bloods or psychopathically deranged kid can obtain a gun and shoot people.

"thats irrelevant its a statistical fluke" actually, the correct term is anomaly. Its not an anomaly when 85% of the world's serial killers are american.
http://www.karisable.com/crserial.htm
and 66% of murders are committed with a gun.

ive accepted some of your credible points (though theyre rare inbetween the slantering of other people, horseshit you compile and narcissistic statements)

whereas you continue to stay oblivious to everyone elses points and claim we're all ignorant idiots. its fucking hilarious. the irony and stupidity is too much to bear.

i hope youll be glad to know im laughing at you.

'kthxbai'