Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]
Who is online
In total there are 50 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 47 guests
Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes
Vim conquistar grande parte deste forúm, rendam-se
The failure of the brazilian disarmament
[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V ... ata_player [/youtube] the best gun control speech I've ever seen.
The fact that restricting gun ownership among citizens greatly increase's crime rate is nothing new, even though the biased media would call it blasphemy to say such a thing. This is very evident in the larger cities of the United States were the most restrictive gun laws have been enacted. The US governments own records show that for every murder committed with a firearm, 100 crimes are prevented with use of a firearm. Generally without a shot ever being fired. This is undeniable proof that firearms de escalate violent situation and not the other way around. There are approximately 8,000 murders each year in the United States involving firearms. That means of 800,000 crimes are prevented each year by firearms.
12 times more people a year are killed with clubs & hammers than with rifles in the United States. I found it a little disconcerting when I found out that the number of people killed by dr. Malpractice each year in the US is equal to the number of people killed by clubs & hammers.
In the United States around 40,000 people a year are killed in car accident and as many as three million are injured. In the past we died from the things like disease, starvation, war, being mauled by a bear or even old age. Today we strap ourselves into metal death traps and crash into each other. Some would call it the Darwin Awards, others would call it population control. I say we go back to horses, at least when the horse breaks his leg, kicks me off, dies and leaves me stranded, I can eat him.
And have you seen how fast these new cars are? They go so fast I can pretty much guarantee you will be the paramedics to the scene of the crash by a good at an hour.
What a crazy world we live in.
Playing the Devil's Advocate here...
Source? Does that include incidents involving the Police or other Law Enforcement? Is the data self-reported or collected another way? What constitutes a 'prevented crime' due to the use of a firearm? Could have another self-defense weapon achieved similar results?
Several studies would conclude the opposite. I wouldn't throw around 'undeniable proof' about any claim either
What about handguns? Not many people must be murdered by rifles considering the homicide rate in the states is ~14,000 and 8,000 are killed by firearms. If 12x more people die by being bludgeoned to death than those killed by rifles, not many people must be being murdered by rifles.
Your point being? Does this mean you never travel in a car? Does this mean we shouldn't aim to reduce sources of death unless they are the primary contributors of death?
Some would say that the argument is ridiculous and devoid of reason.
Think of what else in society would degenerate if the only mode of transport was by horse
How many of those 800,000 crimes prevented by firearms would have been murders added to the death toll list.
The approximate 8000 deaths a year in the United States by firearms includes those by police officers. There are generally less than 300 murders a year committed with rifles and shotguns. Any of this information can be found on the FBI Crime statistics website or easily Googled. There are probably thousands of sites on Google on the subject.
There has been exactly one more order since 1968 with a legally owned fully automatic weapon in the US. That murder was committed by a police officer with a police issued weapon.
Every single country in the world that has restricted firearms from civilian possession has had a dramatic increase in criminal activity. Google the crime rate increase in Great Britain over the last 15 years. The death toll is staggering.
What constitutes a crime? Rape, murder, assault, breaking and entering. Does it really matter.
Couldn't other weapon have been used to prevent a crime? Some of the time yes of course, but ask yourself, would you rather have your little sister fend of a would be rapist with, a can of mace or 38 special. Which one do you think has by far the best it Deterrent value. Plus do you have any idea how many times I've seen someone accidentally shoots himself in the face with a can of mace.
And I highly doubt that mace prevents anywhere near as many crimes year as firearms do.
I was being sarcastic about The Darwin Awards and the going back to horses thing.
Keep in mind, I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here. My stance of firearm legislation is irrelevant to the appropriateness of your arguments.
I don't know, you didn't answer any of my questions
OK. I didn't ask about that, but doesn't matter!
OK. I suspected so based on my previous reasoning. Not sure how relevant it is for your argument, though.
That may be acceptable for an internet debate or such but you have to realise you can't throw around words such as "undeniable proof" or expect people to be swayed by your argument if you can't be bothered to cite facts and statements. I could just as easily make up a load of crap and tell you to "check the FBI website or Google". The burden of proof is on me to provide the evidence for my claims
I asked before and I will ask again, source?
Correlation doesn't equal causation, either. You'll have a hard time proving that the increase in gun-restricting legislation correlates with an increase in crime. NZ has gun-restricting legislation but good luck proving that it isn't any number of other factors that have caused an increase in crime (the obvious one being population increase, but there are probably ~20 others worth considering).
See above. Google the decline in pirates over the last 500 years. The death toll from wars since is staggering. Bring back pirates!
I said 'prevented crime', not crime. As in, what constitutes a crime being prevented? If you're going to study crime prevention based on firearm use, you need operational definitions. I would like the operational definition for 'prevented crime' in whatever study you're citing.
All sorts of logical fallacies here.
Would you rather a million people die each year due to wars or a few thousand pirates patrol the seas and rape and pillage only a few thousand?
That's not the only thing worth considering though. For purposes of this argument, assume that firearms are responsible for the death of 5,000 innocents each year but prevent 100,000 crimes. If mace was responsible for the death of 5 innocents each year but prevented only 50,000 crimes, what would be more preferable for society: guns or no guns and lots of mace?
All one has to do is look at the gun crime rates of Detroit to see how well gun restriction reduces violent gun crime.
Re: "Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW
I doubt you'd appreciate someone making the opposite argument using a city with a large amount of guns floating about and a high crime rate. In fact, you could probably use the United States as a country to make that argument. 'Look how many guns are in the US, look at their crime/homicide/prison statistics'. I'm not going to make that argument because I know it's reductionist and ignores what's really going on. The same is true for the argument you make
Why argue over technicalities? Facts are facts read them for yourself. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
The number one cause of death in the 20th century was governments first disarming and then murdering their own citizens.
this is just one of the hundred websites on Google confirming this evidence.
This is pretty simple, there's nothing to dispute here and those who try simply haven't looked for themselves.
Google the Federalist letters. Even the founding fathers of the United States new this to be true in the 1700. This is very very old news and the same was true in Rome.
It's getting late I'm going to bed goodnight sir.
I would hardly call things such as confounding factors 'technicalities'. If we didn't worry about 'technicalities', our science and technology would be that of the middle ages.
Statistics are statistics. You can use 'em, abuse 'em, or misuse 'em. Statistics only equate fact in a very, very narrow sense. For example, you may measure the number of attempted armed robberies in a city by sampling from the population and extrapolating afterwards. But you're not actually measuring the true number of armed robberies in that city. Say the number you measured in your research was 350 armed robberies over a 6 month period. The 'fact' is that 350 armed robberies occurred in your sample over a 6 month period. Though, even that is disputable due to biases/error. Saying that 700 armed robberies occurred over a 12 month period in that city is not fact. It's an estimate.
You'll have to learn the 'technicalities' of statistics and research if you hope to have any chance of grasping what's really going on.
Additionally, you just linked me to a source of some statistics. The statistics do not speak for themselves. What interpretation would you like me to have of them? You didn't give me one so I can conclude what I think is reasonable based on the statistics. That may very well differ from what you would conclude. My point being, facts are not facts. If the problem of gun regulation was so simple that it could be solved by visiting the FBI.gov site, I'm sure it would have been solved by now. Even in American politics.
That's not a cause of death. You may as well blame socialism, communism, and facism. Or moustaches. Or dictators. Or the existence or widespread use of guns. Or lack of food. Germany, as a nation, militarily, were disarmed. Did the Nazi's disarm the people of Germany or arm them?
Did the Soviets disarm the people of Russia? Did the Chinese/Japanese disarm the people of China/Japan? I don't know the answer to these questions but I doubt it made much difference regardless.
When you look at the some substantial death tolls of the 20th century, the leading causes seem to be war and famine. Most of the war dead are nations killing people from other nations. Most of the famine deaths are probably self-inflicted by governments on their own people. Russia and China come to mind there. Did the Russians and Chinese disarm their people and, if so, would the populace have fought back and saved the lives of their countrymen had they not been disarmed?
I would also suspect that infectious and degenerative diseases top the list for leading causes of death in the 20th century. The Spanish Flu killed about as many as WW2 did alone.
I didn't see any mention of disarming, arming, gun, or firearms. What about the piece is relevant? I didn't bother reading much because it is pretty shoddy work. Not saying I could do better but it's not exactly up to standard either.
"Most wars are between nondemocracies". No, most wars are probably between democracies and nondemocracies. Depending on your definition of war, democracy, and 'most' for that matter. This is why operational definitions are important.
Also, someone's opinion (even if occasionally cited) does not constitute confirmation. From what I saw, it didn't even mention what you were looking to confirm. Even if it did, it would still be based on the interpretation of statistics and evidence. Physics may leave less room for the interpretation of statistics than the social sciences, but it's still an interpretation of evidence to support a conclusion.
If only it were this simple
Really, you have to be naive to think that. Aside from the fact that almost nothing is as simple as it really is, how is it that you are so easily able to solve the problem yet many others aren't? Is it more likely that you have found the simple solution or that the solution is not so simple?
It's like the conversations you have with people around a dinner table where someone goes on about the homeless/poor/criminal/uneducated spouting how doing this and doing that will solve all the problems and the country will live happily ever after. You have to be naive to think any of those issues are simple. You have to be naive to think that a few proposed fixes will change everything and everyone will be better for it. People are complex, society even more so. Nothing involving human society and behaviour is simple.
Knew what to be true? You could always quote the relevant evidence to save me time spent on searching and induction/telepathy. Having said that, is what the Founding Fathers said in the 1700s still true/relevant today? What makes the Founding Fathers omniscient? What was true in Rome? Is it still relevant in this day and age?
Boomer, I mean no disrespect by making these points. I think they're useful regardless of the conversation being had. Most of the things I have mentioned, you have skimmed-over or made some fuzzy connection to something else that is itself irrelevant or vague. We can keep doing this all week but we won't get anywhere. I don't even know what you're arguing for except "don't regulate firearms". Is that don't regulate them any more than they already are, de-regulate them to a prior period, or de-regulate them entirely? You've mentioned some useful statistics that might support your argument but without covering the 'technicalities', the statistics are meaningless. I could turn them around and use them in my favour if I so wished. Statistics are easy to manipulate unless you clearly state and define all relevant terms and conclusions.
Well that escalated quickly.
On the freedom vs. security line, I'd say we're pretty reasonable with regards to the 2nd amendment. You can own or build pretty much whatever you want, but it gets quite expensive if you want something big.
Thus most crimes are committed with something small, and there is too much small stuff floating around to regulate, for all practical purposes. It's an issue of limited resources.
Also, the US has bigger domestic issues to deal with...
You're trying to make something very simple complicated. Reason this has not be solved in the United States simple, you cannot have a true belief in something until you seen it for yourself. And 50% of the United States does whatever the media tells it too.
The reason I made my initial comment was hoping I could spark some interest in someone to go look for themselves. I did not come here to argue over politics and I simply don't have the time to give you a complete history lesson of the world. Because that's what this comes down to. In all of history every unarmed society has ended up being slaves to their own government.
The fact is that nearly every country in the world has indoctrinated their citizens to have irrational fear of firearms and the FBI statistics do speak for themselves as long as you look at them with an open mind. If you want to be blind to the truth that's up to you. If you wanted to know the truth you would go look for yourself, I most certainly not going to do it for you. Again the whole point of my comment was to get people to think for themselves.
The simple fact is that firearms are used by far more for good, than for evil. We're just talking about the crimes committed with firearms, the truth is the two primary reasons for citizens having firearms have nothing to do with crime. So sorry if this seems a little silly to me. In the United States we have this thing called the Constitution and there are two primary reasons that guarantees are right to keep and bear arms and neither of those two reasons have anything to do with crimes.
If there's a single shred of evidence that disproves my believes I would love to see it, believe me I have looked.
Well thank you, but fortunately my native language is sarcasm, because as you can tell my english sucks.
The only thing worse than my English are my typing skills. This is compounded by the fact that I'm posting from my smartphone and my finger covers nine buttons. I guess that's what the preview buttons for huh.
I fully believe that every individual has the right to think and feel whatever they want. I did not mean to cause an uproar and I hope I haven't stepped on anybody's toes. I hold no hard feelings against anyone from this discussion. I only hold grudges if they're really good ones.
While the above graph is a few years old, the 2013/2014 figures were 7.5 million, a continued fall.
In any case, even if the crime rate had gone up, linking that with the 1997 Firearms Act would be a very tenuous link.
Self-defence hasn't been considered a legitimate reason to own or carry a firearm in the UK since 1937 (yes, I do mean prior to WWII) and when the 1997 Act banned handguns, the number of pistol owners in the UK was about one in every 960 - a number small enough I doubt it had any impact on dissuading crimes.
Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
Who is online
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]