Connecticut School Shooting

[EffectsofRaven]

Armed citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police and have fewer incidents of mistakenly identifying the criminal. Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes

Didn't you just prove my point?

If armed citizens shoot and kill more criminals - your gun fatality rate is higher. What happened to your justice system?

 

[Chris]

Didn't you just prove my point?

If armed citizens shoot and kill more criminals - your gun fatality rate is higher. What happened to your justice system?

I didn't know your argument was that gun fatality rates were higher considering that's an inarguable fact, not an argument. Oh and if a criminal has a gun, you can't defend yourself with a bat.

And criminals will have guns whether civilians do or not.

 

[EffectsofRaven]

I didn't know your argument was that gun fatality rates were higher considering that's an inarguable fact, not an argument. Oh and if a criminal has a gun, you can't defend yourself with a bat.

And criminals will have guns whether civilians do or not.

Exactly, but you don't see the British, Canadians, or typically anyother country go "WE NEED GUNS!!!"

Dingle was a bit stupid and forgot Violent Crime probably doesn't include gun crime as it's different entity all together.

Gun Crime & Gun Fatality are typically/should be under the same bracket, so yes, it does prove my point on variable levels - you remove legally owned guns, crimes will go down/ gun fatality will go down/ the potential for massacres go down.

Sorry if it seems I'm talking down to you Chris, it's more for other members.

 

[Mick Donalds]

Didn't you just prove my point?

If armed citizens shoot and kill more criminals - your gun fatality rate is higher. What happened to your justice system?

Who gives a fuck about the life of an armed criminal? I sure as shit don't. Especially if they're repeat offenders. If killing them increases our gun fatality rate, COOL.

 

[Mick Donalds]

Dingle was a bit stupid and forgot Violent Crime probably doesn't include gun crime as it's different entity all together.

.

Oh it is? Hmm.. That's funny. I'd say gun crime IS inherently violent, wouldn't you?

 

[Chris]

Exactly, but you don't see the British, Canadians, or typically anyother country go "WE NEED GUNS!!!"

Dingle was a bit stupid and forgot Violent Crime probably doesn't include gun crime as it's different entity all together.

Gun Crime & Gun Fatality are typically/should be under the same bracket, so yes, it does prove my point on variable levels - you remove legally owned guns, crimes will go down/ gun fatality will go down/ the potential for massacres go down.

Sorry if it seems I'm talking down to you Chris, it's more for other members.

1. Americans aren't all screaming that, in fact a good bit aren't, which is why this discussion of gun control is going on in the first place all over America. If everyone agreed that we needed guns, then we wouldn't be having arguments.

2. I believe what [MENTION=2563]Dingle Bells[/MENTION] was trying to say was that violent crime increased after guns were banned. I could be wrong though.

3. Civilian casualties would more than likely go up however with no way of protecting themselves from gun-related crimes because the criminals would still be able to get them just as they get illegal drugs, and just like they got alcohol during prohibition.

4. I didn't feel you were talking down to me, but good job admitting you're talking down to other members :

 

[EffectsofRaven]

1. Americans aren't all screaming that, in fact a good bit aren't, which is why this discussion of gun control is going on in the first place all over America. If everyone agreed that we needed guns, then we wouldn't be having arguments.

2. I believe what [MENTION=2563]Dingle Bells[/MENTION] was trying to say was that violent crime increased after guns were banned. I could be wrong though.

3. Civilian casualties would more than likely go up however with no way of protecting themselves from gun-related crimes because the criminals would still be able to get them just as they get illegal drugs, and just like they got alcohol during prohibition.

4. I didn't feel you were talking down to me, but good job admitting you're talking down to other members :

You have to talk down to blueberries otherwise they REALLY struggle to understand. :

I found an interesting legal table from 2012 about Gun Crime over all, but transferring the data into less messy and much smaller table might take some time but it proves my point.

I'm trying to remember the dates of when Guns were banned, would mean me having to go look up and then comparing it to a year table from the 80s to 00s... It's naturally hard to assume.

But someone like Dingles whose probably stroking his gun right at this moment sure as he doesn't understand real justice... Shoot first, as questions later. Here's UK states for guns over all in 2011.

% of homicides by firearm: 6.6
Number of homicides by firearm: 41
Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop: 0.07
Rank of Ownership: 88
Average firearms per 100 people: 6.2
Average total all civilian firearms: 3,400,000

41 Homicide by Firearms compared to America's 9,146 and they have 88.8% of 100 of people owning a firearm... I'm starting to think this might be down to America's bad educational system + believes + (lack of) common sense.

 

[Chris]

What Dingle and a few others have been saying is NOT that the UK has experienced an increase in firearm crimes, but an increase in all VIOLENT crimes since guns were banned. Of course gun crimes are going to go down, but guns AREN'T the problems, gun crimes go down, other escalate, that's all we're trying to say.

 

[EffectsofRaven]

What Dingle and a few others have been saying is NOT that the UK has experienced an increase in firearm crimes, but an increase in all VIOLENT crimes since guns were banned. Of course gun crimes are going to go down, but guns AREN'T the problems, gun crimes go down, other escalate, that's all we're trying to say.

I get that entirely, but I'd rather have a 20% increase of non-fatal violent crimes than typically fatal gun crime.

Escalation in crime in another area, makes up for a huge potential decrease in another... Rather hear about more fatalities than more people getting injured?

 

[Mick Donalds]

\

But someone like Dingles whose probably stroking his gun right at this moment sure as he doesn't understand real justice... Shoot first, as questions later. Here's UK states for guns over all in 2011.

.

My government doesn't disarm me and then tell me that I have a "duty to flee" my own property when some dangerous armed criminal invades my house.

You're exactly right. I'm licking my split-lizard tongue and stroking my shotgun right as we speak.

You're sitting in a cafe in London, nestled with your boyfriend Gaz, wearing horn-rimmed glasses, and drinking fruit flavored tea.:

You're an asshole.

-Assholes make assumptions. Get it?

 

[Chris]

Honestly, no. I'd rather hear about a criminal getting shot breaking into someones home than hear about 10 homes being broken into and stuff stolen near me.

 

[EffectsofRaven]

Honestly, no. I'd rather hear about a criminal getting shot breaking into someones home than hear about 10 homes being broken into and stuff stolen near me.

That's what bugs me about your country... If shit scares you... Shoot.

More caring about your own well-being than the others around... Not fatal solutions to EVERY PROBLEM, yet it's easier to shoot someone than brawl with them for five ten minutes.

Sanctity of life, abuse of Self-Defense laws, etc etc.

Sums up the American way of thinking... Too many rights, not enough consequences.

 

[Chris]

You can't brawl with someone who has a gun.

 

[We Are Legion]

The last massacre I could find in Canada that had more than ten victims was back in 1989.

You must not have looked very hard because the Eaton Center mall in downtown Toronto had a shooting this summer. :fp: Only 1 death, but he shot several people. I really don't get the relevance of how many people he killed either. So Canadians are bad shots in comparison... OK? The intent is still there. The Columbine killers were even worse tbh. They fired over 600 rounds and only killed a little over a dozen people. They must have sucked at Doom.

And if Australian people have such a "different attitude" as you said, explain why Australia handed down gun bans of their own. Also explain to me why gun crime soared +40% after the ban and crimes against senior citizens went through the roof over 100%.

Totally a chance by the same people going "second amendment!" "We need MOAR guns!" "NO GUN CONTROL!" see the pattern forming, typically the dumb bible bashers down south in your country are the fearing civil war, and the ones with the highest probability of starting it again, just like 1800s.

If all those states secede, what would be their chances of be successful, considering the majority of America's money spinners are northern/coastal areas, Michagen, Chicago, New York...

It's incredibly dumb what they're throwing out, crimes have gone down dramatically due to the lack of guns in the UK. Sure, there is gun crime, every country, but I don't feel the need to sleep at night, wanting to clutch hold to a shotty or sidearm.

Blah.

Wow. There is SO much ignorance here... I don't even... wow.

I should probably point out first that Michigan and Chicago are not "coastal areas".

Secondly, the Civil War was started by slave-owners, not "Bible-bashers" (I'm guessing you also meant "Bible-thumpers")

Also, 26,000,000 people live in Texas. So compare that to the 80,000 idiots/trolls who signed that silly petition. OMG CIVIL WARZ!!!!

And if you feel you would have trouble sleeping in the US without a gun, the homicide rate there is actually only 3% higher than UK's. So you might want to grab that shotty and start tucking it in with you now.

 

[Rated R Superstar]

Fuck all y'all I got my ninja stars, I'm fookin good mate!