But have fun shooting each other, im off.
But have fun shooting each other, im off.
No one cares about the black people killed daily in places like Chicago or the Hispanic population in places like California.. Their virtue signaling batman style signal only comes to life when a bunch of white people are killed in a group.
However, I will give credit where credit is due. A brown person gets shot and they come out of the woodwork.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm not?
Gun murders account for like 0.0003% of our entire population.
A majority of those are committed by criminals on other criminals.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, bye.
Because that is not the argument being made.
That is the flawed argument I am responding to. The reason why we have so many more gun fatalities in the US compared to "civilized western Europe countries where guns are banned completely" is because firearms are not banned in the US. Thats like saying why do Christians have more car accidents then the Amish in the US? Because Christians have more cars.I never heard anyone make a convincing statement on why there are so many more gun fatalities in the US compared to civilized western Europe countries where guns are banned completely.
Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam
Average time between initial purchase at retail and use in a crime is over 6 years. Waiting periods are pointless and have been done plenty of times and used in plenty of jurisdictions.
- - - Updated - - -
I mean, it's been debated in here before, but assuming you skipped the other 2000 pages...
The argument of car vs gun isn't about car vs gun, it's about public access to either. You're not saying the military or police shouldn't have access to guns, just that the public shouldn't. By the same logic, wouldn't the environment be better off if public access to vehicles was curtailed for more ride-sharing/ public transportation? Is it needed that everyone has access to a vehicle? Many other countries consider the USA car ownership rates odd also, but it is the norm here.
You don't need a license to own a car, only to drive it on public roads. In most of the USA, you need a license to carry a gun, but not on your property... same as a car.
- - - Updated - - -
22lr is one of the most popular cartridges, not designed for killing (well, groundhogs and stuff I guess).
Plenty of collectible guns, not designed for shooting or killing.
Plenty of competition guns totally impractical for actual offensive/defensive uses.
You even said people, thus ruling out all the hunting rifles/shotguns sold as existing...
"I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."
Maybe a little, but no way as much as gun accidents go down.
- - - Updated - - -
Yea but even things like that are really rare over here. When here a gun accident happens (even if it is a robbery gone wrong or something) it is big news. I have the impression it is daily business across the pond.
And where is this? I live in a country where all guns are banned and we don't have a flood of home invasions rape or assaults...
I just looked it up, I see the problem:
Assault:
https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Crim...l-Rape/Assault
Rape:
https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Crim...xual-Rape/Rape
We are a nation of over 300 million, so in order to hit national news the death rate has to be high. Locally, the news reports on every death. It is huge news as well. It just depends on your area on how often it happens. In my area you more likely to be killed in a car accident then by a gun. There is one stretch of road in Philly known for its high rates of deaths caused by hit and runs.
- - - Updated - - -
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txtAn estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization
Are you telling me 33% of the world population lives in the USA, or in case of rape, about half earth's population?
Quote:
The United States of America is the top country by assault in the world. As of 2014, assault in the United States of America was 731,089 number that accounts for 33.20 % of the world's assault.
The United States of America is the top country by rape in the world. As of 2014, rape in the United States of America was 118,027 number that accounts for 49.06 % of the world's rape.
Now I am pretty sure there are error margins on all statistics used but trends are trends.
My point is that the US has easily the highest number of both Assaults and Rape in the world percent/population wise. My question is "why?". What is so different over there? I don't live in America. All I know is how it is portrayed to us. A country where a gun is less dangerous than a nipple on TV. All I know is the statistics I read such as the ones I posted above. The rest is just popular culture from TV/Movies that most likely shows a stylized America. I wonder what it really is like over there and why people so cling to guns while the rest of the civilized world works fine without them. Why the crime rates are so high compared to my country or other western European countries. What is the difference?
Last edited by Planetdune; 2017-10-16 at 07:21 PM.
I dont know, Your guess is as good as mine. We are a violent society. We are desensitized to violence. We have collapsing familial values. Selfish, egotistical, overly stressed etc.. etc..
- - - Updated - - -
What is portrayed is not what everyday life is like for the majority of Americans. There arent shootouts on every street corner. There arent rapes in every back alley. There arent assaults in every bar. What you see is what makes headlines. We have a large population which means we have a lot more instances of shitty people doing shitty things.
They don't have to drive elsewhere, the straw purchasers will go unprosecuted as they run guns everywhere.
I do like how the crime is in one place, but they need to go somewhere else to get the guns for that crime, rather than commit crimes near the guns. Let's not look at the reasons for the crimes in that place, lets focus on the guns elsewhere.
- - - Updated - - -
Because of wealth inequality among inner city slums and meth-lab trailer parks, crime becomes a way of life and life is cheap. Drug routes run guns/drugs/ violence up from Mexico through the slums to repackage misery. It is not everywhere, but it's not like you can just move into poor areas and clean them out, people have rights. You don't see folks improving the areas, they just use government money to appease folks while stealing as much as possible.
"I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."
We have one of the worlds largest police forces and enough attorneys to feed the planet. Every shove and push is going to get elevated to "assault" by someone. Every incident gets called in, every incident gets a police response, every incident has attorneys passing out business cards. The statistics make the place look like a war zone, but reading through the local police blotter shows it's almost all penny ante nuisance stuff that was hardly worth writing down.
There's also big money to be made in civil forfeiture and running prisons, so there's a motive for law enforcement to go looking for easy stuff. Why walk a beat when you can shake someone down for a joint and take his car? Our crime rate would probably drop by half if there wasn't so much profit in making it go up.
Go to any public housing building or area and you see the same thing, squalor. It isnt because money wasnt put into the buildings. It is because the residents dont value the housing units, because they are not invested in them. They havent placed any money from their own pockets to paint, and fix broken doors so it isnt valued.
Go to most areas in the inner cities and try to conduct a murder investigation. Nobody sees anything, the phrase "Snitches Get Stitches" exists for a reason. You cant help people who dont want to be helped.
- - - Updated - - -
There is some truth to that.
My favorite philosopher Michael Huemer, made some arguments that I've never heard before from a debate on gun control last month.
He speaks at 56:09.
His argument summarized quickly goes something like this:
l. A survey of data on private gun ownership shows it does not have a clear net positive or net negative effect on things like crime
ll. Laws should only be passed if they have a clear net positive effect
lll. Rights should not be violated unless doing so has an overwhelmingly positive effect
lV: Therefore, gun control violates a right without having justification for doing so
Last edited by Deletedaccount1; 2017-10-16 at 09:12 PM.