Can't argue with this...Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Printable View
Can't argue with this...Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Wow, this needs to be reposted. Any pro-gun argument pales in comparison with these facts. Thanks robertlouis!
Nice "facts".. might one ask which year your stats are from?Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Figure 2.3 Countries ranked by violent death rate per 100,000 population, 2004-09
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ountry.svg.png
Source: GBAV 2011 database
Figure 2.3(detail) Countries with average annual violent death rates of more than 30 per 100,000 population, 2004-09
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ountry.svg.png
Source: GBAV 2011 database
Lets stick to "real" facts...
Well, if you Google "countries with most per capita gun deaths" you find USA with 10.3 per 100k per year according to CDC. And while I can't vouch for the numbers, it's hard to believe that some of the places on Faldur's list are worse than us. Regardless, the gun laws need to be tightened. I don't mind the 2nd Amendment, but there has to be some limits. Sure, NRA folks vote. But so do I. And hopefully sensible people can rule on this issue.
Just to put your numbers in perspective, in 2010 (I would've loved to have used 2011 numbers, but the FBI hasn't published them yet. If they have, I couldn't find them.) 8,734 Americans were murdered with firearms . In comparison, 2,437,163 Americans died in the same year. Firearm related murders account for, get this, less than .004% of American deaths. A total of one American being killed with a firearm every 60.22 minutes while at the same time one American dies nearly every 13 seconds from other causes (we're dropping like flies). One American dies every 6 minutes in a hostital because of mistakes or infection, for crying out loud. I'm almost four times as likely to die in a car crash as I am to be shot. Maybe, we need background checks and waiting periods to buy cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
From the CDC the top ten causes of death in America is:
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
Just the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faldur
Thanks for the clarification Faldur. I grow weary from the misinformation put forward by some of these posters. What RL will apparently never be able to reconcile ( either because of his ideology or his birthplace) is that we as Americans understand that many of our freedoms come with perils. We weigh those perils against the loss of those freedoms. The Perils of freedom....many died for freedom......many are killed by it. We need character reform....not a change to our Constitution. In his book, Democracy in America, de Tocqueville observed that Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality. I've noticed the loudest voices in favor of infringing on rights are those that fancy themselves as intellectual. That's the point blokes like RL can't quite digest. He's visited America, but he doesn't know America. He's a bit down on the US lately. Ask the Syrians if they'll be asking the Finns, The Spanish, or the UN for help from an increasingly brutal tyrant. Somewhere in the world there's a dirty, dangerous mess that needs to be cleaned up, and more likely than the rest of the world will find some excuse not to do it...and they'll bash the US with the left hand, and beg for help with the right. I'm not quite putting RL in that category, but he's getting dangerously close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loren
You can't compare firearm murders with death from disease and natural causes, that's ridiculous. The point is that the gun deaths might have been prevented. And of those 36,909 suicides, how many involved a gun? I'd bet the majority of them.
Nice copy and paste from Wikipedia. Alexis de Tocqueville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
Sorry Gio, the Nation's Top Cop and President are black, if there is some heat you feel from police, blame it on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
Gio, it's time to stop with the racism. I work with immigrants who risked everything to come here. They work their asses off, and they're going to be somebody someday, and do well for their families. If you feel held back, it might be time to look inward instead of outward.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
You really should read a history book.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
Look up American Revolution, see how some farmers and townfolk took on the biggest army and navy in the known world. Or the French Revolution, or the overthrow of the Czars.
And as we know from the history books the Confederacy successfully left the Union and formed its own country.
All I hear is a nation in denial. I'm done here. It's been fun, but goodbye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTB
Cops are cops. They are the physical embodiment of the laws passed in every local municipality, the enforcement behind those laws.
Sometimes cops crack heads and don't give a fuck. If you're a minority or fit the 'profile' of a generic suspect, you're gonna get hassled on principle.
My observation isn't 'racist'. It's real life for many people of color. See the current stop-and-frisk policy in NYC, where more Black and Latino youths have been accosted by cops LEGALLY than the total number of Black/Latino youths in the entire city.
That's textbook police harassment.
White people, welcome to the real world. If a cop decides to give you shit, well you just got shat on. Suck it up and deal.
You're a fool if you think a few state militias with their scary machine guns could defeat the U.S. military.
The only way an insurrection would be successful against the U.S. army would be if a few infantry divisions with all their artillery and supplies decided to turn traitor.
BTW, are the pro-gun people against any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment?? Or do you believe there are too many restrictions already??
It is true that many gun deaths could be avoided. I feel for all those families, no death is easy for the survivors to bear. My father died in the same year that I referenced, he was one of the ones who died in a hospital. His death probably could've been avoided if the SOB he saw about a month before, then again two weeks before, would've taken the time to check him out instead of simply giving him some pills and shoving him out the door.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxpower
As I said in my earlier post, I'm four times as likely to be die in a car crash as I am to be shot. I'm not asking you to give up your car or even make it harder for you to purchase another one in the future, I'd appreciate it if you left my firearms alone.
Personally I don't believe that no matter what race, religion, or color you are. Police officers, exponentially more so then your average citizens, have an obligation to conduct themselves with decorum and courtesy. They operate by procedures and rules in order to protect and serve the populous, at their best anyway. At their worst they are no better than the worst of criminals themselves, abusing power and exploiting the weak. I believe no one person is more important than another and has no right to treat another as a lesser, be they your average person or a uniformed officer. I myself have been unfairly treated by the police on more than one occasion in my life, but I never took it lying down, to do that is only to encourage the behavior and to help to bring unjust treatment onto another that will come after you. There is no place for a poor guardian of the peace in this day and age, if their fellow officers are unable or unwilling to do something about them, then it falls to the victims to take a stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
As for the 2nd, I don't mind regulations and restrictions on handguns and heavy artillery, though I believe for those people who are enthusiasts they have the right if they feel like taking the time and filling out the paperwork, getting the background checks, taking a full physical and mental exam, whatever, to own what they choose to, within reason. That stuff I could go either way, deadly weapons of course are bad, but in the right hands they can be safe and productive as well, I reserve final judgment. But to me, rifles and shotguns, they have enough restrictions as it is in my opinion, they have practical uses in hunting and pest control, mercy killings for livestock and pets, home protection from wildlife and intruders, unless modified they are fairly hard to conceal, the majority of sport shooters use shotguns for discs and rifles for target shooting, with all that I see no reason to deny the responsible people who wish to have relatively easy access to such firearms.
I'm not in denial...believe that...Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Ya, and all many of us Yanks hear is a bunch of brits trying to tell us how to live. How'd that work out the first time?Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Have a pint and cool off..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
He certainly has the educational background to know what's necessary to fake a range or disorders. Still, if he's going to use an insanity defense, he has little chance of winning. The rate of success for this type of defense is extremely low. Given the extensive preparation, etc., that preceded this tragic event, he'll never pull it off.
-Quinn
Quote:
Originally Posted by loren
That's not a good analogy. The purpose of a car is for transportation. If a car-related death occurs, it is due to accident or misuse. While some gun-related deaths are accidental, most occur because the gun was being used for it's purpose, unlike the car. Also, people spend far more time in traffic than they do looking at the business end of a gun, so I'm not surprised that car deaths are more likely.
Sorry to hear about your dad.
Now if fighter bombers or missiles had existed at the time of the creation of your Constitution and the right to bear arms had included those weapons would all you gun fetishists be arguing for the right to own them. It is incredible the sort of nonsense talked by people like OMK, Faldur and Loren to name just three.
I have no desire to tell Americans what to do. I DO know the country. I have visited maybe 500 times. I have lived there as well. So this is not some Brit trying to impose British values but a human trying to get those on here who seem to think that a terrible murder rate is acceptable just so they can own that assault weapon or automatic pistol to see another, and in my view, better point of view. There are plenty of Americans who share my view..
And OMK ludicrous comparisons with Syria or some other dictatorship and the need thus for Americans to cling to their armoury... putrid.
I re-post the followng - leaving aside its final ironic comment but just for the statistics. America is in many ways a great country founded on great principles. The misinterpretation of the Constition to include owning weapons as you guyss argue is NOT one of the things that makes it great.
As i said before I think of that little girl gunned down by a man whose right to own assault weapons you support and I say her life is more sacred than the bullshit you guys spout.
Sure, you can't compare the ~12,000 gun related criminal acts per year to causes of NATURAL death. Meanwhile, cigarettes kill ~45,000 NON-SMOKERS, (ie: PEOPLE WHO DO NOT SMOKE BUT ARE CONSTANTLY EXPOSED TO THE RETARDS WHO DO such as children whose parents smoke around them constantly, among others like the elderly) who end up dying from NOT ONCE SMOKING A CIGARETTE!Quote:
Originally Posted by maxpower
Now compare the ~45,000 non-smokers who died (in essence were murdered by those who smoked around them) versus, the ~12,000 violent deaths caused by gun murders. The other ~20,000 gun deaths caused by suicides and accidents, which in that case would be comparable with the people who DO SMOKE INTENTIONALLY and die every year (~443,000 dead annually) from this "suicidal/accidental" inhalation of death.
Now, if all you retards would stop ignoring this simple argument for the sake of your personal anti-gun hippie fuck agendas and note that CIGARETTES KILL MORE NON-SMOKERS ANNUALLY THAN EVERY GUN RELATED DEATH IN AMERICA ANNUALLY.
And laws have been enacted to put health warnings on cigarettes, limit their sales, and keep people from being exposed to second-hand smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
As if that has stopped the ~45,000 people annually from dying from second hand smoke. As if any laws regulating cigarettes actually stops children and youths from gaining access to them and smoking them anyway. As if any forms of prohibition have EVER worked in this nation without inducing a WAVE of black market and Mafia style criminal activity and illegal trafficking and higher rates of violence and crime. Ban all the guns you want but remember what the alcohol prohibition did. A black market for it was formed, run by violent and murderous mobsters. The banning of these guns will only take them from the law abiding citizens and the only people able to access them will be the criminals who will utilize these black markets to access them and then use them against said now disarmed law abiding citizens and the police and government regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxpower
"anti-gun hippie fuck agendas"
Yep - of course. rational argument. Thanks KittyKaiti. So eloquent....
No one is talking about a BAN on firearms, but unfortunately that's all you gun lovers ever hear in these convos.
It's about enacting common sense restrictions on gun sales and ammo. No person realistically needs a 30+ round magazine clip. Buying a gun shouldn't be easier than obtaining a driver's license.
But it's cool.
The more I read, the more I'm finding out the NRA has become so militant pro-gun because of their 'relationship' with firearms manufacturers. The NRA's agenda IMO isn't about the 2nd Amendment and ALL about freaking out all the bubbas into purchasing vast quantities of firearms they don't realistically need.
There was a segment on MSNBC about how gun sales have dropped historically as more people move to urban areas and firearms manufacturers stumbled upon the idea, with the help of the NRA, to regularly scare the shit out of gun owners that politicians were trying to take away their guns.
Look at all the rhetoric and demagoguing directed at Pres. Obama and his 'secret agenda' to ban ALL privately owned guns. Never mind that Obama signed two gun control bills into law that reduce restrictions on gun owners,(allowing them to carry guns in checked baggage on Amtrak and allowing gun owners to take loaded firearms into national parks.)
WHen in doubt, follow the money.
Makes a change from a bunch of Yanks trying to tell the rest of the world how to live ... and failing time after time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Faldur
It worked out pretty well for us for the most part, if you must know. We live in a country which has a relatively low violence rate, not many gun deaths with a democracy that mostly works without the use of lobbyists. We also managed to get rid of most of the religious nutters by chasing them off to foreign lands - which is why gay marriage, pro/anti-abortion and the teaching of Darwin in schools is almost a non-issue.
Oh, AND we can get a pint in the pub at 18. So you can go and fight for your country, own an assault rifle in your country but you can't walk into the neighbourhood bar and order a beer? But that's another story about a country which basis it's laws on out of date historical papers, religious fervour and a cowboy culture.
It also a fact that the Global Burden of Armed Violence Index, in its own words states:Quote:
Originally Posted by Faldur
data on conflict and non-conflict deaths are assembled separately. The GBAV methodology therefore established two different datasets: one on intentional homicides (to cover non-conflict death) and one on direct conflict deaths
For this reason you will note that the tables copied by Faldur do not include the following countries:
1. Afghanistan
2. Algeria
3. Burundi
4. Central African Republic
5. Chad
6. Colombia
7. Côte d’Ivoire
8. Democratic Republic of the Congo
9. Ethiopia
10. Georgia
11. India
12. Indonesia
13. Iraq
14. Kenya
15. Lebanon
16. Myanmar
17. Nepal
18. Nigeria
19. Pakistan
20. Palestine
21. Philippines
22. Russian Federation
23. Somalia
24. Sri Lanka
25. Sudan
26. Thailand
27. Turkey
28. Uganda
29. Yemen
(GBAV 2011, Methodological Annexe)
The study also notes:
Lethal violence is strongly associated with negative development outcomes and is accompanied by low levels of
overall MDG achievement.
The higher the level of lethal violence recorded in a country, the larger its gap with respect to other countries in
terms of development.
A reduction in a country’s incidence of lethal violence corresponds with improved MDG performance across most
indicators.
High rates of intentional homicide are accompanied by significantly higher levels of extreme poverty and hunger (MDG 1),
lower primary education enrolment (MDG 2), and higher infant mortality and adolescent birth rates (MDGs 4 and 5).
Countries that report proportionately lower levels of income inequality and unemployment exhibit comparatively
lower levels of homicide.
States that feature lower levels of human development and income almost always report high and very high levels of
lethal violence.
Monitoring of armed violence should be integrated into routine MDG progress assessments and there is a need for
more investments in national data gathering capacities and observatories.
(Ch 5: More armed violence, less development).
I will leave it to you Americans to argue over the rising numbers of people leaving school barely able to read and write, the numbers living on food stamps because they are so poor; and the correlation of these social problems with homicides. The point being that you might want to assess the impact of firearms on the US population in the context of the USA, where 46 million people live below the poverty line -a line established by the US that is.
The full report, including a special report on Violence against Women, is here:
http://www.genevadeclaration.org/mea...ence-2011.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by loren
If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been
most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter.
– George Washington, September 1776
When you refer to the militia as 'the people' you are perverting historical fact for present-day purposes. In the Revolutionary War it would be better to think of the militias harassing the British in the countryside like guerilla bands, as well as being, as Washington indicated, an essential addition to the Continental Army (and not just because some of these militias fought with the CA at, for example, the Battle of Bunker Hill). If you think of the brave stand taken by the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, bear in mind that they had been formed in the mid-17th century and that they were selected mostly young men who were then armd for the purposes of defence. Most definitely NOT 'the people' in its broadest sense:
Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers. Typically 25 years of age or younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.
(http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm
or the book John Shy, A People Numerous & Armed: Reflections on the Military Struggle for American Independence, University of Michigan Press, 1990).
The 'armed militia' referred to in the 2nd Amendment were the armed militia that existed before the American Revolution; these were the 'guarantors' of local security that existed before the creation of police forces and the armed forces of the US, and continued to exist after the disbandmen of the Continental Army after the end of the revolutionary war.
Once again, 'the people' referred to are those selected to fight in an armed militia, not every Tom, Dick, Harry -and Jane.
I agree with most of what you say Seanchai, except that the Constitution, far from being out of date, is a living document that continues to play a crucial role in the development of law. Because of its values and principles, it is the reference point and justification for many issues -the controversy is over the interpretation of what the intentions of the authors of the Constitution were then, with realities today. That is also why American politics continues to fascinate an outside like me.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Good points here! Fear allows certain people to make money. Despite a 200+ year legacy of democracy, we live in fear that a dictatorship may try to take us over. Iran, which doesnt have nukes or a delivery system might attack us, despite our 65+ year head start. That's fear based thinking. I never believed that Saddam Hussein was a treat to us, especially considering how many guns Americans own. But they used fear, to convince Americans that he needed to be taken down. Some people have made a lot of money, so your right.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
Not a fan of the Daily Mail but this is a good re-cap of everything and designed of course to pull at your heart for the senseless loss of these people's lives caused by ONE NUTCASE and the ability for him to access MULTIPLE ASSAULT TYPE WEAPONS. Shame on those who support the purchase of these types of guns. You are fools buying into paranoia and the industries that create it, to profit from you. Shame on you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-massacre.html
I thought America still had loads of places in prohibiton, a lot are tottally "dry" to this day ?Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
Shame on me for buying "assault type weapons"? Just because one retard goes out and murders people, does not mean the hundreds of thousands of gun owners who possess "assault type weapons" will go out and mass murder people. I enjoy how all of you anti-gun people here will blatantly ignore everything I show you, including FBI and CDC data reports and horrifying video footage of your beloved, completely trusting authorities to ensure your personal security at any given second. While some scumbag is knocking down your door to murder you and your children and you dial for 911 because you are unarmed and then wait ten minutes for the police to arrive, at my home, said scumbag has been dead for 10 minutes before the police arrive and me and my family are safe and unharmed. In addition to that, said idiot and inefficient basket-weaving trained police cannot be any more trusted with "assault type weapons" than any other citizen. Just because the idiot has a badge, does not imply he has a brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
The gun I hold in my image, is my security from crime and government. It is my hobby, sport, personal past-time and my insurance against dangers foreign and domestic, civilian or government authority. Anyone who would bend over to the authority of the government and expect total safety of you physically and the safety of your rights and gladly surrender your arms to them, is not worthy of any protection or freedom at all. We cannot trust any government, especially ones like the United States, who have long used its power across the globe to fuck up countries for the sake of profit and destroy its own civilian populous in the name of capitalism and corporate greed. Owning a gun is no more dangerous than not owning one and leaving all your security in the hands of a totally inept government.
Hot photo Kitti but yes, shame on you.
You're going to use that gun to defend your house from intruders? You couldn't get it around the doorways? What can that do to defend your house that a pistol couldn't? You'd be in more danger of having it taken off you.
Seriously, your rhetoric here doesn't sound unlike some of these people who goes "off the rails".
Isn't this the same corporate greed that's feeding your fears and selling you weapons which are clearly more than for simple self-defensive or hunting?
Loved your post Kitty.:kiss:
If gun controll works, then why is Chicago, which is in the State of Illinois (which has some of if not the most restrictive gun laws in the country) one of the most dangerous cities in the country? And the States of California and New York aren't exactly Second Ammendment friendly and they're national leaders in firearm related homicides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
Whoa!
Look forward to you taking on the US government alone with your one gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
Good., then we agree the Declaration is irrelevant to the issue of gun regulation...though it's odd then that you would bring it up in this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaustin
Kitty Kaiti - the Timothy McVeigh of Hungangels.
I'm all for 'common sense' restrictions, and I think you are for them too.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
BUT, plenty of politicians who call themselves 'gun control' are really 'gun ban'. Until recent Supreme Court decisions, the City of Chicago outlawed the possession of a gun in the home. Everywhere in Illinois, the State that Chicago is in, they have outlawed the possession of a gun in public.
Washington, D.C. also outlawed the possession of guns in the home. Even for those people who were employed as Special Police Officers and were armed at work, protecting federal employees.
New York City supposedly allows gun permits, but you pretty much have to be a friend of the Mayor or another politician to get one. The fees are extremely high and the application looks like something a potential vice presidential candidate would submit for vetting. Which gives the City plenty of reasons to turn you down. It's a virtual ban.
(If you'd like to look up the stuff about Chicago and D.C., the Supreme Court decisions are McDonald vs. Chicago and D.C. vs Heller.)
The 'gun rights' people have reason to not trust the supposed 'gun control' folks, who have shown by their actions that they are really want to see 'gun bans'.
So what? That is not a reason to oppose reasonable regulation. In point of fact Illinois does not ban guns. You can have them in your home, you can carry them on the street, you can rack them in your car, take them here and take them far. What you can't do in Illinois (yet) is carry them concealed. I applaud Illinois for last bit of boldness. Banning concealed carry is not (as some would falsely describe it) a total ban on guns.Quote:
BUT, plenty of politicians who call themselves 'gun control' are really 'gun ban'.