Gun Homicide rates

I wonder how individual states within the US would rank if you pulled them all out and compared their stats to these other countries.

Also, why does the title thread mention "Gun Homicides" while everyone keeps posting general crime stats?
 
What's the poverty rate? The unemployment rate? How many illegal aliens does Japan have? What's the ethnic group density? Oh it's 98.5% Japanese? Moving on......
I love this argument. It's like the anti-exceptionalism argument or something. "America has too many poor people and too many immigrants and too many minorities to learn anything from other nations with radically lower homicide rates! We need our guns here! USA!! USA!! USA!!"

 
I love this argument. It's like the anti-exceptionalism argument or something. "America has too many poor people and too many immigrants and too many minorities to learn anything from other nations with radically lower homicide rates! We need our guns here! USA!! USA!! USA!!"

Please tell me why it's a faulty argument. Genocide couldn't occur if everyone was the same. Right?

I was merely trying to point out that Japan is 98.5% Japanese. I would guess their unemployment rate is lower. When people are happy they don't tend to shoot each other.

I could be wrong though.

 
I love this argument. It's like the anti-exceptionalism argument or something. "America has too many poor people and too many immigrants and too many minorities to learn anything from other nations with radically lower homicide rates! We need our guns here! USA!! USA!! USA!!"
Did violence increase in Sweden after Eastern European immigrants poured in?

 
Did violence increase in Sweden after Eastern European immigrants poured in?
Did it? How did it compare to violence in the US? What's the per capita homicide rate there vs the US? How about you actually formulate an argument rather than just leaving hanging questions?

More importantly, does the increase (if any) in violence in Sweden make any sort of adoption of gun regulations from other nations in the US unworkable? Probably not but that seems to be easy answer folks are going for here.

 
Did it? How did it compare to violence in the US? What's the per capita homicide rate there vs the US? How about you actually formulate an argument rather than just leaving hanging questions?

More importantly, does the increase (if any) in violence in Sweden make any sort of adoption of gun regulations from other nations in the US unworkable? Probably not but that seems to be easy answer folks are going for here.
Formulate an argument like this?

I love this argument. It's like the anti-exceptionalism argument or something. "America has too many poor people and too many immigrants and too many minorities to learn anything from other nations with radically lower homicide rates! We need our guns here! USA!! USA!! USA!!"
Yes, the crime has increased in Sweden due to immigration. Most crime is still committed by the natives. US and Sweden stats:

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Sweden/United-States/Crime

Gun Homicides is in double digits compared to USA. Yet the overall crime rating is quite high for a western nation, especially the one located in Scandinavia. Crime victims actually exceed that of US.

Would you prefer to completely outlaw guns for citizens or just "assault" weapons?

 
Formulate an argument like this?
I never claimed that was an argument. That was me laughing about the "But.. America's TOO DIFFERENT!" argument.

The homicide rate in Sweden is 1:100,000. The homicide rate in the US is 4.8 per 100,000. Given the title of this thread, that's the relevant stat. Technically gun homicides should be but that just opens the "But you can kill someone with a PENCIL!" whining. Bottom line is that the homicide rate in Sweden is far lower than that of the US, even with those bloodthirsty immigrants.

 
I never claimed that was an argument. That was me laughing about the "But.. America's TOO DIFFERENT!" argument.

The homicide rate in Sweden is 1:100,000. The homicide rate in the US is 4.8 per 100,000. Given the title of this thread, that's the relevant stat. Technically gun homicides should be but that just opens the "But you can kill someone with a PENCIL!" whining. Bottom line is that the homicide rate in Sweden is far lower than that of the US, even with those bloodthirsty immigrants.
And I only asked questions, no arguments at that time.

Homicides in Sweden are far lower, that is true. Yet there are plenty of violent crimes, rape actually exceeds that of US by 175%. Would you agree that the number could come down if people had more guns?

 
"Could"?  Maybe.  Maybe it could come down if everyone carried knives.  Or Mace.  Or Tasers.  Or rape whistles.  Or a sock full of pennies.  Or took a dog with them. 

That said, my understanding is that Sweden has broader laws on what constitutes "rape" than most nations which explains part of the discrepancy.  Conversely, what constitutes a homicide is remarkably consistent from nation to nation.  But even if we're to set aside any difference in the laws, I don't see much of a case for jumping to a dramatic increase in firearms to solve the issue.

 
Please tell me why it's a faulty argument. Genocide couldn't occur if everyone was the same. Right?

I was merely trying to point out that Japan is 98.5% Japanese. I would guess their unemployment rate is lower. When people are happy they don't tend to shoot each other.

I could be wrong though.
Capitalism as a practice in Japan is shaped by longstanding social norms.

Keiretsu Capitalism would be decried as "loony left socialism" by the plutocracy's useful idiot brigade over on FOX.

Maybe if we practiced it and brought the impoverished into the lower middle class and the middle class into the upper middle class, crime rates would decline because people are "happy," to use your intellectually shallow logic.

Winner-takes-all capitalism (what we have) overtly regards laborers as tools who should be PROUD to submit to the lowest bidder, so long as the bid exists. We (well, you, not me) engage with capitalism by embracing the ends as the justification; that is, the outcomes of economic exploitation are sacrosanct and above scrutiny - they are real and just because the market willed it to be (and if the market did not will it so, they would not exist). Yet, despite that, you surely embrace the strong-arm tactics of Bob Corker and the Governor of Tennessee, who LIED aboue Volkswagen's intentions in order to pressure and persuade an anti-union outcome - to keep hours longer, reduce job security, slow wage growth among employees, and to pit working man against working man.

That's your free market, sweet thing. Doesn't sound like "happy" to me. Sounds petty, sounds vindictive, sounds deliberately divisive by the power elite in order to retain their power.

That blind dude who killed his friend, was acquitted, and got his gun back...clearly he's an...erm...patriot of whatever you call it.

 
"Could"? Maybe. Maybe it could come down if everyone carried knives. Or Mace. Or Tasers. Or rape whistles. Or a sock full of pennies. Or took a dog with them.

That said, my understanding is that Sweden has broader laws on what constitutes "rape" than most nations which explains part of the discrepancy. Conversely, what constitutes a homicide is remarkably consistent from nation to nation. But even if we're to set aside any difference in the laws, I don't see much of a case for jumping to a dramatic increase in firearms to solve the issue.
Well by that logic, homicides would be non-existent if we ban knives, or mace or tasers and dogs.

Discrepancy could go both ways. I bet people all over the country do it all the time to make the stats look "good".

Remember state of Illinois is pretty anti-gun and how are they doing when it comes to violent crime?

 
I think you seem to fundamentally misunderstand advocates of gun control, such as myself, if you are seriously asking whether or not I agree with clear-cut cases of self defense.

Are you really that dumb? Please say no. Please say no. Lie if you have to.

 
Well by that logic, homicides would be non-existent if we ban knives, or mace or tasers and dogs.
Well, no, That's terrible logic because I never stated that those things were used in homicides. I said they would be deterrents to rape. Several of them are expressly non-lethal deterrents so why you'd say "We'd have no homicides if we banned Mace" is beyond me. The whole "But you can kill someone with a stick!" canard is moronic anyway since, if you're going to equivocate a gun with a pointy stick, you're essentially saying "We don't need guns because sticks are just as effective". Or you admit that guns are much more effective at making people dead which trivializes the "But they'll just kill with pointy sticks" argument. It's just a bad argument no matter how you slice it.

Chicago's gun laws were crippled by the ready supply of firearms from suburban Cook County and Indiana. Banning the purchase of an item is unfortunately ineffective when you can travel literally five miles south and purchase it legally. It would be interesting to see how it would have worked out had the entire multi-state region carried the same restrictions but it's a moot point anyway since the relevant laws were struck down. Incidentally, I'm aware of the unlikelihood of the region having the same laws (barring a federal ban) but just making the point that you can't compare gun laws in Chicago and their effectiveness to those in places where you don't have the ability to take ten steps and legally buy a gun anyway.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you seem to fundamentally misunderstand advocates of gun control, such as myself, if you are seriously asking whether or not I agree with clear-cut cases of self defense.

Are you really that dumb? Please say no. Please say no. Lie if you have to.
Please read the thread a little more closely. The word "ban" has been used quite a few times. I was just making sure that there was no one who truly supported banning all firearms. I am a proponent of gun licensing, but I am also a proponent of child licensing. Driver's licensing is required under the law, what is more important, driving a car or raising a child? I say this in a tongue in cheek manner, but become more and more serious with the notion as I see such piss poor parenting resulting in crappy citizens. An unfettered and unaccountable welfare state is more destructive to our country than the paltry amount of mass shootings we have..

 
Please tell me why it's a faulty argument. Genocide couldn't occur if everyone was the same. Right?

I was merely trying to point out that Japan is 98.5% Japanese. I would guess their unemployment rate is lower. When people are happy they don't tend to shoot each other.

I could be wrong though.
Look at the Burakumin in Japan and tell me they're all happy.

On another note, read about the Ainu and the Zainichi Koreans.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please read the thread a little more closely. The word "ban" has been used quite a few times. I was just making sure that there was no one who truly supported banning all firearms. I am a proponent of gun licensing, but I am also a proponent of child licensing. Driver's licensing is required under the law, what is more important, driving a car or raising a child? I say this in a tongue in cheek manner, but become more and more serious with the notion as I see such piss poor parenting resulting in crappy citizens. An unfettered and unaccountable welfare state is more destructive to our country than the paltry amount of mass shootings we have..
A page search for "ban" turns up 7 results: 2 in this post of yours I'm quoting, and the other 5 from Syntax Error in his post just above yours (but after mine). Seems I did read closely. Maybe silk or Bob mentioned "bans," but (a) I have them dudes on ignore and (b) they're not arguing for gun control.

It's a shame that you're willing to make up lies in order to avoid admitting that your post was (a) dumb, (b) a straw man, and (c) wrong.

Keep plugging away at it. Why admit you made an error when you can double down on dumb-fuckery?

Sad. Sad, sad, sad.

 
Well, no, That's terrible logic because I never stated that those things were used in homicides. I said they would be deterrents to rape. Several of them are expressly non-lethal deterrents so why you'd say "We'd have no homicides if we banned Mace" is beyond me. The whole "But you can kill someone with a stick!" canard is moronic anyway since, if you're going to equivocate a gun with a pointy stick, you're essentially saying "We don't need guns because sticks are just as effective". Or you admit that guns are much more effective at making people dead which trivializes the "But they'll just kill with pointy sticks" argument. It's just a bad argument no matter how you slice it.

Chicago's gun laws were crippled by the ready supply of firearms from suburban Cook County and Indiana. Banning the purchase of an item is unfortunately ineffective when you can travel literally five miles south and purchase it legally. It would be interesting to see how it would have worked out had the entire multi-state region carried the same restrictions but it's a moot point anyway since the relevant laws were struck down. Incidentally, I'm aware of the unlikelihood of the region having the same laws (barring a federal ban) but just making the point that you can't compare gun laws in Chicago and their effectiveness to those in places where you don't have the ability to take ten steps and legally buy a gun anyway.
I am not the one who introduced these objects in our conversation. Yet you are right that they are deterrents. A gun, would probably be the best deterrent. Guns are of course much more effective at killing someone, be it self defense or a murder. What I am trying to argue is that it is a tool, which is being used by men with evil intentions. If they think about killing someone, lack of a firearm will most likely not stop them.

It seems to be the reason for the ineffectiveness of these gun laws is not because you can drive into a different county to legally buy a gun but because criminals do not care about laws. Just think of other nations which have strict gun control and yet the criminals in those countries find ways to supply themselves. Violent crime is still existent and of course the police is always late.

Last thing is that the 2nd amendment was created as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. I do not know about I have seen an unjust government that has turned on its own people. Therefore I would like to keep a gun to protect myself.

Also maces.

xpillow-mace.jpeg.pagespeed.ic.awcqpyLgEI.jpg


 
Well, no, That's terrible logic because I never stated that those things were used in homicides. I said they would be deterrents to rape. Several of them are expressly non-lethal deterrents so why you'd say "We'd have no homicides if we banned Mace" is beyond me. The whole "But you can kill someone with a stick!" canard is moronic anyway since, if you're going to equivocate a gun with a pointy stick, you're essentially saying "We don't need guns because sticks are just as effective". Or you admit that guns are much more effective at making people dead which trivializes the "But they'll just kill with pointy sticks" argument. It's just a bad argument no matter how you slice it.

Chicago's gun laws were crippled by the ready supply of firearms from suburban Cook County and Indiana. Banning the purchase of an item is unfortunately ineffective when you can travel literally five miles south and purchase it legally. It would be interesting to see how it would have worked out had the entire multi-state region carried the same restrictions but it's a moot point anyway since the relevant laws were struck down. Incidentally, I'm aware of the unlikelihood of the region having the same laws (barring a federal ban) but just making the point that you can't compare gun laws in Chicago and their effectiveness to those in places where you don't have the ability to take ten steps and legally buy a gun anyway.
So the murder rate in Chicago and gun violence is attributed to people going outside Chicago and LEGALLY buying firearms?

I don't think so.

While that certainly may be the case in "some" instances I'd have to say a majority of the inner city gun crime is committed by people who aren't legally allowed to own/carry a gun. period.

 
I don't understand why the right has such a fetish with Chicago. Not only do they really not give a shit about what happens there and cynically use it as a banner of gun regulations gone wrong, but they always conveniently ignore the facts that most of those guns used in gun violence in that city were in fact illegally purchased through authorized outlets and illegally sold. But hey, let's just blame buyers because how could the seller ever be responsible! They were just going along with the market, right? And it's not like the gun shops have any culpability either...it's not like straw purchases are illegal or anything.

inb4 "plausible deniability"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the murder rate in Chicago and gun violence is attributed to people going outside Chicago and LEGALLY buying firearms?
Well, a good number of them are attributed primarily to legally purchased fire arms. Granted some of those were straw sales and the like. I linked to an article about it and everything but I guess if "you don't think so", that's sort of close to the same thing.

I'd certainly agree though that many murders are committed by people who aren't legally allowed to own a gun. Too bad then that the Usual Suspects fight tooth and nail to keep every avenue for illegal gun ownership open including straw sales, unregulated private gun sales, gun shows without background checks, blocking requirements to report "stolen" weapons, etc. There isn't some magic gun tree that creates these firearms -- guns illegally owned and used in murders were sold by manufacturers to agents who then let them fall through the cracks and circulate to criminals. We can't do anything to stop that though because, you know, liberty 'n stuff.

 
I am not the one who introduced these objects in our conversation. Yet you are right that they are deterrents. A gun, would probably be the best deterrent.
You don't need a theoretical "best" deterrent, you just need an effective one. If a would-be assailant would be deterred by being Maced, then you didn't need a gun.

It seems to be the reason for the ineffectiveness of these gun laws is not because you can drive into a different county to legally buy a gun but because criminals do not care about laws.
Can't it be both? You cite other nations yet other nations with strict gun laws (and surrounded by nations with the same) have far lower homicide rates and certainly homicide-by-firearm rates that are a mere fraction of those in the US. It would seem that accessibility is a prime factor in how many people get shot.

 
You don't need a theoretical "best" deterrent, you just need an effective one. If a would-be assailant would be deterred by being Maced, then you didn't need a gun.
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Can't it be both? You cite other nations yet other nations with strict gun laws (and surrounded by nations with the same) have far lower homicide rates and certainly homicide-by-firearm rates that are a mere fraction of those in the US. It would seem that accessibility is a prime factor in how many people get shot.
Well of course! Criminals will always find the best approach for them. If he is able to purchase a firearm without any hassle at a store, he will most likely do so unless he does not want to be seen buying a firearm. A criminal might also go the route of the black market for anonymity and cost effectiveness.

These nations do have a lower firearm-related homicide rate, I have never denied that. What I have been trying to explain to people is that you need to find the actual reason for these crimes. Violent crime is still a major issue in all of these nations, some surpassing that of USA. It will occur because people themselves are dangerous. One of the best defenses an individual can have is a gun. You could argue that the law enforcement will protect you, I will disagree.

 
But hey, let's just blame buyers because how could the seller ever be responsible! They were just going along with the market, right? And it's not like the gun shops have any culpability either...it's not like straw purchases are illegal or anything.

inb4 "plausible deniability"
I'm pretty sure it's a felony with mandatory jail time for selling a gun to a felon. It is actually taken very seriously.

http://bangordailynews.com/?s=sold+gun+felony&searchsource=tophat

But uh.... where you want to place the blame next?

 
I say we blame food manufactures for selling people food that they eat to stay alive that allows them to obtain and use guns to kill people. If it wasn't for them providing food, people wouldn't be able to use guns to kill people.

Am I following that logic right?
 
I say we blame food manufactures for selling people food that they eat to stay alive that allows them to obtain and use guns to kill people. If it wasn't for them providing food, people wouldn't be able to use guns to kill people.

Am I following that logic right?
That actually made me LOL.. I am in a library studying for my test.

 
I'm pretty sure it's a felony with mandatory jail time for selling a gun to a felon. It is actually taken very seriously.

http://bangordailynews.com/?s=sold+gun+felony&searchsource=tophat

But uh.... where you want to place the blame next?
Dude, you should REALLY read some of those articles in your search query. Hint: Most of them aren't saying what you think they're about. Not to mention that private sellers aren't required to do NICS checks. Also, Bangor, ME isn't Chicago, IL. HTH
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
How about meaningless platitudes and pithy sayings? Can you bring those?

Is there any indication that a sizable percentage of the sexual assaults in Sweden are happening at gunpoint?

A criminal might also go the route of the black market for anonymity and cost effectiveness.
Where do you think those guns are coming from? Most firearm incidents in the US come from regular civilian style firearms. Someone buying a pistol on the "black market" is just buying a gun that was likely sold legally by the manufacturer to a wholesaler/retailer who then sold it to a legal buyer who then turned around and sold it to God-knows-who. There's multiple places where this chain could have been broken before the "black market".

 
How about meaningless platitudes and pithy sayings? Can you bring those?

Is there any indication that a sizable percentage of the sexual assaults in Sweden are happening at gunpoint?
I guess that one went completely over your head. If a robber pulls a pistol in your face, would you take out your knife and show him how shiny it is?

Don't know about Sweden. I would think its raw power with the help of another object. Now if these ladies only had guns..

Where do you think those guns are coming from? Most firearm incidents in the US come from regular civilian style firearms. Someone buying a pistol on the "black market" is just buying a gun that was likely sold legally by the manufacturer to a wholesaler/retailer who then sold it to a legal buyer who then turned around and sold it to God-knows-who. There's multiple places where this chain could have been broken before the "black market".
Ok and I am not denying that these guns could fall in the hands of the criminals. If we ban these gun sales, criminals will find other ways to acquire them. Good citizens on the other hand will be at a disadvantage. Remember guns don't kill people. Its people that kill people.

 
:rofl:

:rofl:

Please be a joke. Please be a joke. 

Not for content, but just...I fuckin' fear for the world if paraphrasing a bumber sticker saying/Chuck Norris idiom is how you think an argument is advanced.

Please be a joke.

 
I guess that one went completely over your head. If a robber pulls a pistol in your face, would you take out your knife and show him how shiny it is?
This sounds like an excellent reason to curtail the ability of criminals to access firearms. You know, like how most of the industrialized free world does it.

If we ban these gun sales, criminals will find other ways to acquire them. Good citizens on the other hand will be at a disadvantage.
And yet pretty much every other Western-style democracy has managed to keep roving bands of gun-toting criminals off the street despite having considerably more gun regulation than the US.

Remember guns don't kill people. Its people that kill people.
Especially people in the United States where firearms are plentiful and attempts to regulate them meet tremendous opposition. Less so in other places where this isn't the case. Funny how that works.

That's the problem with these debates. It always comes down to "But the bad guys have guns so the only answer is MORE GUNS! That didn't solve it? Must need EVEN MORE GUNS!"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This sounds like an excellent reason to curtail the ability of criminals to access firearms. You know, like how most of the industrialized free world does it.

And yet pretty much every other Western-style democracy has managed to keep roving bands of gun-toting criminals off the street despite having considerably more gun regulation than the US.

Especially people in the United States where firearms are plentiful and attempts to regulate them meet tremendous opposition. Less so in other places where this isn't the case. Funny how that works.

That's the problem with these debates. It always comes down to "But the bad guys have guns so the only answer is MORE GUNS! That didn't solve it? Must need EVEN MORE GUNS!"
Culturally speaking we have always been a country drawn to guns. Their significance in our culture can be seen in movies, music, art and everything else under the sun. IMO, the answer is not eliminating gun ownership but more rigid gun control laws and stricter enforcement. NYC has shown that gun laws can work if properly implemented and enforced.

 
Culturally speaking we have always been a country drawn to guns. Their significance in our culture can be seen in movies, music, art and everything else under the sun. IMO, the answer is not eliminating gun ownership but more rigid gun control laws and stricter enforcement. NYC has shown that gun laws can work if properly implemented and enforced.
I'm not advocating complete elimination or banning. It is unfortunate that attempts to enact more rigid controls are blocked by the Usual Suspects.

I'm more perplexed by the fetishism for "American Exceptionalism" that results in every solution from abroad being met with "That'd never work HERE though!". You would think that if you see another guy (or a bunch of other guys) excelling in something you're struggling in, the logical course of action would be to observe them and try to emulate what they're doing. Even if you don't or can't copy them 100%, they certainly have some components you could enact, right? Yet, in topics such as gun control, healthcare, education, etc there's this massive barrier created by this obsession with the idea that the US has to be "different" and our different solutions must be better and more unique because we're America. Meanwhile, proven effective solutions just pass right on by because God forbid we admit that some dirty European "socialist" nation is doing it better than us and we could learn from them.

 
I'm not advocating complete elimination or banning. It is unfortunate that attempts to enact more rigid controls are blocked by the Usual Suspects.

I'm more perplexed by the fetishism for "American Exceptionalism" that results in every solution from abroad being met with "That'd never work HERE though!". You would think that if you see another guy (or a bunch of other guys) excelling in something you're struggling in, the logical course of action would be to observe them and try to emulate what they're doing. Even if you don't or can't copy them 100%, they certainly have some components you could enact, right? Yet, in topics such as gun control, healthcare, education, etc there's this massive barrier created by this obsession with the idea that the US has to be "different" and our different solutions must be better and more unique because we're America. Meanwhile, proven effective solutions just pass right on by because God forbid we admit that some dirty European "socialist" nation is doing it better than us and we could learn from them.
There is a lot of truth in what you are saying but "American Exceptionalism" is unequivocally part of our culture. One could argue it is what brings all of us, folks from different backgrounds, races and cultures, together. It is the quintessential American trait. The old continent has history, both culturally and artistically, which we cannot match. However, as you stated above we need to be more open minded about how to solve the various issues our country faces today. If nothing else we should be looking at this countries and learning from their mistakes and improving on their solutions.

 
There is a lot of truth in what you are saying but "American Exceptionalism" is unequivocally part of our culture.
It's a part of our culture that's ironically holding us back as we refuse to acknowledge that anyone else could have the answers. Which isn't to say we shouldn't strive for innovation or whatever -- it's not a binary thing -- but shunning working ideas just because we can't take credit for them is asinine.

 
It's a part of our culture that's ironically holding us back as we refuse to acknowledge that anyone else could have the answers. Which isn't to say we shouldn't strive for innovation or whatever -- it's not a binary thing -- but shunning working ideas just because we can't take credit for them is asinine.
Agreed.

 
This sounds like an excellent reason to curtail the ability of criminals to access firearms. You know, like how most of the industrialized free world does it.
You fail to see that many of those regulations will not stop the criminals. Your industrialized nations still have a firearm related problem.

And yet pretty much every other Western-style democracy has managed to keep roving bands of gun-toting criminals off the street despite having considerably more gun regulation than the US.
I do not know how else to explain it to you. Obviously gun crime will go down if there are heavy regulations. Violent crime still exists and in some cases surpasses what we have here.

Here is UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Especially people in the United States where firearms are plentiful and attempts to regulate them meet tremendous opposition. Less so in other places where this isn't the case. Funny how that works

That's the problem with these debates. It always comes down to "But the bad guys have guns so the only answer is MORE GUNS! That didn't solve it? Must need EVEN MORE GUNS!"
I am extremely pleased that the people in this country love their guns to death. Again coming from a third wold country where guns are mostly prohibited, I can tell that less guns is not a solution to crime.

The answer is not more guns against the bad guys, its far more than that. Notice the difference in crime between states. Its not just about the ownership rate, it has to do with education, culture, wealth and etc. These are the things that the society needs to focus on.

Another country that is a great example is Switzerland ( I think it was it). High ownership rate of firearms, yet extremely low homicide rate. So.. Guns=/=Crime

 
A page search for "ban" turns up 7 results: 2 in this post of yours I'm quoting, and the other 5 from Syntax Error in his post just above yours (but after mine). Seems I did read closely. Maybe silk or Bob mentioned "bans," but (a) I have them dudes on ignore and (b) they're not arguing for gun control.

It's a shame that you're willing to make up lies in order to avoid admitting that your post was (a) dumb, (b) a straw man, and (c) wrong.

Keep plugging away at it. Why admit you made an error when you can double down on dumb-fuckery?

Sad. Sad, sad, sad.
What was my error? Asking if anyone was in support of a gun ban? Guess what , genius, some people are. You seem very pissy all the time. Is it possible that I could be lucky enough to make your ignore list like Silk and Bob? You do make me laugh though, so carry on. I think I saw you respond to Bob in the other thread. I have me never put someone on ignore, is it selective as to what you see?
 
That's the problem with these debates. It always comes down to "But the bad guys have guns so the only answer is MORE GUNS! That didn't solve it? Must need EVEN MORE GUNS!"
Sounds like Education spending, the Bush/Obama stimulus, and Welfare spending debates as well. "Spending money didn't fix it! We need more spending!"
 
Sounds like Education spending, the Bush/Obama stimulus, and Welfare spending debates as well. "Spending money didn't fix it! We need more spending!"
Save for the fact that those are all things which benefit people whereas guns kill them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am of the mind that if the second amendment was never conceived there would be less gun murders. However strangely I also believe more guns equals less crime. If you're going to have guns legal at all, than you don't want an unflagging select few with them. You simply can't take the guns; the carnage, the money, the effort to do that is astronomical. So, friends of the left - would a crusade for the safety of African-American youths in Chicago prove to be a more laudable effort? When the majority of homicides in the U.S are black on black.

Lets look to other examples of government banning things formally legal for some time like alcohol. We know how it worked out. Why are these pro-weed legalization liberals trying to ban things?

And also I'm tired of liberals rager for swedes. It's a make believe country who's claim to fame is shitty furniture and meatballs.

 
What was my error? Asking if anyone was in support of a gun ban? Guess what , genius, some people are. You seem very pissy all the time. Is it possible that I could be lucky enough to make your ignore list like Silk and Bob? You do make me laugh though, so carry on. I think I saw you respond to Bob in the other thread. I have me never put someone on ignore, is it selective as to what you see?
hahahaha. "some people are" is quite a shimmy away from what you said earlier. You said people were saying "ban," and nobody did. Now you're shifting to a more amorphous "some people are," because you lack the spine to own that you were wrong. You *asked* if you committed an error, when it's plain as day. You can't acknowledge that you, intentionally or not, threw down a monumentally stupid straw man as a way of trying to make your case.

As for responding to Bob, you know how you might poke at a sore tooth every now and then, curious to see if it's still sore? Yeah, pretty much like that. You see that they posted, and you can click on individual posts to view them, a la carte style. But by default they are hidden.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bread's done
Back
Top