NSSF: Gun Crimes Plummet as Gun Sales Skyrocket.

[breadisfunny]

Well, if that is really what you meant, then i am sorry that i had a fit of rage.

You seem like a cool dude, really, ain't got nothing against you - Just took the sentiment of 3rd grader logic to be a knowing shallow reflection

- - - Updated - - -



It takes less to fire a gun than it does to commit vehicular slaughter.

it takes a lot more to stop a several ton moving object than it does to stop a active shooter.

[BannedForViews]

1. So? Is that percentage much different elsewhere?

2. And did they come out of S&W's illegal guns factory? No, they were either bought "legally" and given to criminals or stolen from people who couldn't be arsed to secure them properly.

Proper gun control laws and enforcement of same would pinch off both of those avenues, reducing the number of guns in the hands of criminals, as is demonstrated by Canada, etc.

Canada have a bunch of inner city gamgs where the male population expects to ve dead or in prison before 30, and views prison as a badfe of honor? Talk about comparing apples to oranges.

Its not lie im selling these people guns. Many have been around for a long time. Many are illegally smuggled into the US. I can promise you though thst black drug dealers from compton arent rolling up to gunshows full of middle aged white dudes and walking out with an armory.

[Deleted]

If you want to play semantics and specifically use guns as the only litmus test, of course US will have more gun violence. Investigate all violent crime. Knives, bats, swords, etc. FFS they are trying to ban two-pronged forks in the UK. wtf is wrong with them?????

It ain't about semantics, though ; It's about how easy it is, to kill someone with it and how readily available it is.

Like i said, to actually kill someone with a car, requires a number of circumstances, and physical objects, even more so.

- - - Updated - - -

it takes a lot more to stop a several ton moving object than it does to stop a active shooter.

It does, but how frequent is vehicular manslaughter compared to Gun violence?

[Jinpachi]

You know, i am almost willing to make a statistical investigation to see comperativly how much Gun violence you guys have compared to the rest of the world.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, but it's just, more readily and easily more available to just pull a trigger and blam, someone is dead.

I mean, to actually cause someone to die, with other tools - Either require circumstance or actually getting nigh physical, i mean..

Then there's the whole, people dying by accident ; It just kinda indicates to me, that if you can accidentaly kill someone, just by slipping with your finger or something, just leaves it as a very readily way to kill people, compared to, idk, a knife or something?

Cause, yeah, you usually don't slip with a knife into someones guts, haha :P

Accidental deaths are so few it's a non issue. Gun deaths in 2015 accounted for .001 PERCENT of the population. that's a non issue as well. But media makes sure it's all you hear about to make sure you're afraid to go outside.

- - - Updated - - -

It ain't about semantics, though ; It's about how easy it is, to kill someone with it and how readily available it is.

Like i said, to actually kill someone with a car, requires a number of circumstances, and physical objects, even more so.

- - - Updated - - -



It does, but how frequent is vehicular manslaughter compared to Gun violence?

Take away guns and watch the numbers skyrocket, and the death toll per attack increase

[Deleted]

Accidental deaths are so few it's a non issue. Gun deaths in 2015 accounted for .001 PERCENT of the population. that's a non issue as well. But media makes sure it's all you hear about to make sure you're afraid to go outside.

- - - Updated - - -



Take away guns and watch the numbers skyrocket, and the death toll per attack increase

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-...her-countries/

This is an interesting read, if you feel like getting numbers and perspective on the issue.

As is expected, your overall homocide rate, is higher. Your unintentional firearm rate, is also higher (albeit, as you say, it is small)

Though, the total, is a lot larger, than most countries.

Which, again, is expected, cause your availability of guns, it's swiftness and how easy it is to kill someone with it.

[spinner981]

You have no proven co-relation. On my side, i am providing a argument that is sound by metrics of pure Physical standard (i.e, physically no gun, no gunshot)

What do you have? Conviction of Belief?

According to these statistics, there is a correlation between higher legal gun ownership and lower gun crimes. That is indeed a correlation. The other side claims the opposite happens, that with more guns means more gun crimes no matter what.

Furthermore, only looking at gun crimes is unfair, because higher gun ownership reduces violent crimes across the board. Even if gun crimes went up slightly due to the presence of more guns, but other violent crimes went down at a more significant rate, that is still a benefit.

But you can't stop criminals from getting guns, which is why every citizen needs to be armed.

Exactly, but the ideal would be for criminals to not have guns still. Though of course, every citizen with the proper training should be armed (or at least it should be legal for them to be armed. Whether or not they arm themselves is still their choice).

It perpetuates the problem, there are tons of societies that don't have guns, and don't suffer from tons of gun related issues.

And comparing societies side by side only looking at shootings while ignoring every single other difference between the two countries is unfair.

[BannedForViews]

If you want to play semantics and specifically use guns as the only litmus test, of course US will have more gun violence. Investigate all violent crime. Knives, bats, swords, etc. FFS they are trying to ban two-pronged forks in the UK. wtf is wrong with them?????

Look up CDC website, FBI crime statistics, and make sure you account for WHERE the crimes are occurring. Cities? Rural areas? which cities? which parts of which cities? This subject has to be approached with specifics. You cant just toss generalizations out there.

The UK and other euro nations use a much stricter definition of assault than we do which skews the statistics in comparisons. I would be wary of taking a lot of these statistical comparisons at face value. Im not suggesting that heating someone up is tye same as murder by gun, but there are ways to move things around to elicit desired results.

[spinner981]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-...her-countries/

This is an interesting read, if you feel like getting numbers and perspective on the issue.

This is an interesting watch, if you feel like getting numbers that actually matter on the issue:



A few points; why do you think that gun control advocates don't care how significantly gang related crimes contribute to fun related everything, and why do you think they only pay attention to gun crimes and not violent crimes in general?

[Sunseeker]

Yeah, but really, where do you draw the line of what is correlation and which is the cause?

If I'm testing a new medicine designed to give people 20/20 vision, and 100% of the people on it ended up with 20/20 vision, but those same people also only drank water and ate protein bars and stared into the sun for 5 minutes a day, is it my medicine that's the cause of their now perfect vision or is it just correlation and some other factor is at play?

It depends on how well you control for variables. Where you draw the line is why generating statistics is complicated.

[Deleted]

This is an interesting watch, if you feel like getting numbers that actually matter on the issue:



A few points; why do you think that gun control advocates don't care how significantly gang related crimes contribute to fun related everything, and why do you think they only pay attention to gun crimes and not violent crimes in general?

According to these statistics, there is a correlation between higher legal gun ownership and lower gun crimes. That is indeed a correlation. The other side claims the opposite happens, that with more guns means more gun crimes no matter what.

Furthermore, only looking at gun crimes is unfair, because higher gun ownership reduces violent crimes across the board. Even if gun crimes went up slightly due to the presence of more guns, but other violent crimes went down at a more significant rate, that is still a benefit.



Exactly, but the ideal would be for criminals to not have guns still. Though of course, every citizen with the proper training should be armed (or at least it should be legal for them to be armed. Whether or not they arm themselves is still their choice).



And comparing societies side by side only looking at shootings while ignoring every single other difference between the two countries is unfair.

But it is, on black and white, that no matter how you spin it, your % of deaths, Suicides, homocides - Are larger, and a lot more present, with guns.

If you had NO guns, like other countries, you WOULD have lower homocide rates and lower % of deaths.

It's obvious, from the numbers.

I have personally, not argued that higher amount of guns == more deaths, i am implying that accessible access (i.e, HIGH ACCESS to guns, i.e, sell in stores and what not) - Causes more death.

Which, is plain true. It is readily available, it's accessible, it's very easy to kill someone with, requires no almost no training to knowingly or unknowingly shoot someone (Being good at it is another story), it doesn't cost a fortune

I mean, it's obvious, man

[WintersLegion]

Yeah, but really, where do you draw the line of what is correlation and which is the cause?

If I'm testing a new medicine designed to give people 20/20 vision, and 100% of the people on it ended up with 20/20 vision, but those same people also only drank water and ate protein bars and stared into the sun for 5 minutes a day, is it my medicine that's the cause of their now perfect vision or is it just correlation and some other factor is at play?

That's why you would have a control sample and both groups would be expected to follow similar guidelines it's just one group would take the medicine and the other wouldn't.

[Jinpachi]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-...her-countries/

This is an interesting read, if you feel like getting numbers and perspective on the issue.

As is expected, your overall homocide rate, is higher. Your unintentional firearm rate, is also higher (albeit, as you say, it is small)

Though, the total, is a lot larger, than most countries.

Which, again, is expected, cause your availability of guns, it's swiftness and how easy it is to kill someone with it.

It is easy to kill someone with a gun. That's why smaller, weaker individuals need them to defend themselves against larger, stronger predators. They are out there, and WILL exploit your weakness for their gain if given the chance. What do you think would happen to Israel if they disarmed themselves tomorrow? There'd be nothing left the day after tomorrow. That's why America will NEVER disarm. It's ludicrous to even insinuate. Hell if you only add up the LICENSED hunters in 2-3 states you have the 5th largest standing army in the world. Guns in america are going nowhere.

[Deleted]

It is easy to kill someone with a gun. That's why smaller, weaker individuals need them to defend themselves against larger, stronger predators. They are out there, and WILL exploit your weakness for their gain if given the chance. What do you think would happen to Israel if they disarmed themselves tomorrow? There'd be nothing left the day after tomorrow. That's why America will NEVER disarm. It's ludicrous to even insinuate. Hell if you only add up the LICENSED hunters in 2-3 states you have the 5th largest standing army in the world. Guns in america are going nowhere.

Then how come your amounts of deaths are larger, %wise, compared to countries with no guns?

Shouldn't all the weak people in other countries, be dominated by some form of law of the jungle, violent gangs beating everyone up, forcably physically forcing everyone to follow their every whim?

It just doesn't make sense.

I get that the US wants it's guns, but to assume that it does not cause more death than not having them, is just silly.

[Jinpachi]

Then how come your amounts of deaths are larger, %wise, compared to countries with no guns?

Shouldn't all the weak people in other countries, be dominated by some form of law of the jungle, violent gangs beating everyone up, forcably physically forcing everyone to follow their every whim?

It just doesn't make sense.

I get that the US wants it's guns, but to assume that it does not cause more death than not having them, is just silly.

Im not arguing that at all, im saying its an acceptable risk.

- - - Updated - - -

Give me dangerous freedom over safe slavery any day.

[Vash The Stampede]

If only we could get everyone in the country armed, crime would be a thing of the past.

Everyone needs to get behind this because a lot of us are going to die.

[spinner981]

So everything I said was fine and this conversation was a waste of both our time.

Naw, time doesn't exist.

But it is, on black and white, that no matter how you spin it, your % of deaths, Suicides, homocides - Are larger, and a lot more present, with guns.

If you had NO guns, like other countries, you WOULD have lower homocide rates and lower % of deaths.

It's obvious, from the numbers.

I have personally, not argued that higher amount of guns == more deaths, i am implying that accessible access (i.e, HIGH ACCESS to guns, i.e, sell in stores and what not) - Causes more death.

Which, is plain true. It is readily available, it's accessible, it's very easy to kill someone with, requires no almost no training to knowingly or unknowingly shoot someone (Being good at it is another story), it doesn't cost a fortune

I mean, it's obvious, man

Did you even watch the video? Are you really basing your entire argument on your own personal theory? More guns = less violent crime. A huge portion of gun crimes, gun homicides, etc. in the US is gang violence, and if people didn't have guns they would find an alternative way to commit suicide.

[Jinpachi]

The UK and other euro nations use a much stricter definition of assault than we do which skews the statistics in comparisons. I would be wary of taking a lot of these statistical comparisons at face value. Im not suggesting that heating someone up is tye same as murder by gun, but there are ways to move things around to elicit desired results.

Very true. you can use statistics to say pretty much whatever you want, if you know how to work the numbers. I'm just saying that the deaths in america by gun, and the potential for deaths is an acceptable risk to maintain our way of life in this nation. Better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

[Deleted]

Did you even watch the video? Are you really basing your entire argument on your own personal theory?

The video talks about mass shooting, i am merely talking from the standpoint of recorded deaths, with guns involved.

And i do not distinguish between legally owned guns, or illegaly - I am talking about guns excisting, at all.

Your prevelance of guns is very high compared to a lot of other countries, making death more readily available, and it statistically is.

That is all i am saying.

[Jinpachi]

Everyone needs to get behind this because a lot of us are going to die.

I got to see him live a couple of years ago at a Funny Bone club. Hilarious!!! I don't agree with all of his views, but it sure as hell didnt prevent me from seeing things from his perspective. Met him after the show, such a super nice guy, am gonna see him again real soon.

[Deleted]

Im not arguing that at all, im saying its an acceptable risk.

- - - Updated - - -

Give me dangerous freedom over safe slavery any day.

Safe slavery? What are you on about?

Do you imagine yourself having more freedom, cause you can readily kill someone?

- - - Updated - - -

There are a lot of people in this country with bizarre views regarding firearms that do not seem to be responsive to new informational input. There's really not much to be done about it right now.

I talked to a few friends of mine, from the US; and our cultures differ very much, some things that i just took for granted, was completely abscent in their way of culture, and vice versa - It was quite jarring, really.

I recall seeing a video about a guy who had an encounter with the police, and he was talking about how he unholstered his gun, put it away etc. I was basically shocked that he said he had a gun, like, i was literally not even fully comprehending that it was a totally legit thing, that someone could just go around with a gun, basically anyone - And it'd not be a big deal.

And i feel, that must be grounds in of itself, to create fear. that anyone, could, if a nutjob, just easily kill you. break into your home. I see tons of that sentiment on these forums by the US people, but i ain't ever heard it from my comrades or people in my country ; Cuz people don't get others breaking into their homes with guns or expecting to die, you know?

It's just, idk, cultural differences, but also sorta jarring.