247 réponses à ce sujet

[raging_monkey]

How is any of this DA related?

[EmperorSahlertz]

That's exactly the point.

 

And if you look at our crimerate, murders have actually dropped drastically, while the number of private gun owners has risen.

But then again, the accidental gun death in juveniles has been completely unaffacted by safe storage laws.

[EmperorSahlertz]

How is any of this DA related?

We are reaching consensus before we can extrapolate the subject matter to DA.

[BronzTrooper]

here you go chief * passes bowl of popcorn*

 

* hands drinks to monkey and Threat while taking bowl of popcorn *  Thanks, and here you 2 go.  

[Sir DeLoria]

First of all, that link I sent you just showed that people die more often from pools than accidental gun shootings. So by your logic no one should have a pool.

Did you read my posts or even your own link? Probably not, because then you wouldn't have written that
 

Second, the only one that sounds like a dumb ass here is your ass, hence why most here are telling you exactly that. The NRA statement is accurate. Only people saying it's not are ignorant fucks like yourself that can't think on their own. Law enforcement and cars are necessary, and to us in our society, we think the right to be able to protect ourselves is necessary as well. You may not agree, living off in lalaland Finland in your sheltered little home with very little experience with the outside world... But that means little given that you don't know **** about our gun laws, or the rate of deaths here in relation to other things, which DOES matter.

Welp, since you apparently really haven't read any of my arguments, have ignored most of my points and actual statistics, I'm just gonna stop wasting my time arguing with that ignorant brick wall you are.

And for the record, I'm American, grew up and around Oakland, CA and have most likely been to far more countries than you, pal

[Colonelkillabee]

I don't think it has much to do with crime rate in the first place. Criminals are going to do their thing, with or without guns. It is about death rates and collateral damage.

 

And you cannot deny, that USA has a high gun death rate. It is also only a logical outcome of accesible guns. Obviously more people are going to die from them. But if I wanted to kill someone, homicide style, then I wouldn't let my lack of access to a gun prevent me. So again, it doesn't have much to do with crime rate in the first place.

The point is that those people are going to die whether it's with a gun or a knife. Britain proves this. Why the hell would you ban guns if it does nothing to the deathrate? It's silly. Especially when as I said. Gun ownership has gone up while violent deaths, while high, has gone drastically down. It may not have to do with crime rate to you, but it means everything to this discussion. The off topic one anyway.

[Colonelkillabee]

• In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime
• A 2008 report by the University of Melbourne that analyzed firearms deaths for a period of 100-years in Australia, concluded that the new laws did not have any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.
• A 2011 study published by the Justice Policy Journal examined the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand over a 30 year time period. The results don’t provide any evidence in favor of the belief that banning guns reduces mass shootings. According to the authors:

  “[The results do]not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.”

• A study published in the British Journal of Criminology found that there was no evidence that the NFA [National Firearms Agreement] had any impact on reducing firearm homicide. They did find that it may have helped reduce firearm suicide, but note that societal factors were already reducing suicide rates. Lastly, a 2009 study published by the Australian Institute for Suicide Research examined how the NFA effected suicide rates and found the following:

  “The implemented [firearm] restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference”.

• In an independent research paper titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?,” first published in Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy, Don B. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D., a Canadian criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, examined the correlation between gun laws and death rates. While not new, as gun debates nationwide heat up, the paper has resurfaced in recent days, specifically with firearm advocates.“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction of their findings. In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh.  More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research. 

  The study goes on to say:

  "…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world."

[herkles]

What does this have to do with mages

[Colonelkillabee]

Did you read my posts or even your own link? Probably not, because then you wouldn't have written that
 

Welp, since you apparently really haven't read any of my arguments, have ignored most of my points and actual statistics, I'm just gonna stop wasting my time arguing with that ignorant brick wall you are.

And for the record, I'm American, grew up and around Oakland, CA and have most likely been to far more countries than you, pal

I didn't ignore any of your points, I disproved them and you're butthurt. I also doubt you yourself read my link, because what I said is on point 100 percent.

 

If pretending otherwise is your way of quitting the debate and feeling like you've won, then by all means. Sit the **** down.

 

And for the record, I am american, but I was born in germany on an army base and lived there as well as france.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The point is that those people are going to die whether it's with a gun or a knife. Britain proves this. Why the hell would you ban guns if it does nothing to the deathrate? It's silly. Especially when as I said. Gun ownership has gone up while violent deaths, while high, has gone drastically down. It may not have to do with crime rate to you, but it means everything to this discussion. The off topic one anyway.

But it does mean a lot for death rates. Nothing for crime rates. But a whole lot less people died from guns in Britain ever since the ban.

[TheTurtle]

Gun control is a good thing yes for example some random jackoffs shouldn't be allowed to walk into a Starbucks or Walmart with AR rifles and gangbangers with serious rapsheets shouldn't be able to get a guns out of a trunk. However a law abiding citzen living in a less than ideal neighborhood should be allowed to have something to protect themselves.

While I agree you don't have to shoot to kill (most gun owners and enthusiast will tell you just the sound of shotgun being cocked is enough to scare someone away) there are times when you may not haveven a choice. There are certain neighborhoods where cops take a very long time to arrive just because crime is so common people living there should be able to defend themselves in case this happens to them.

In cases like the 17 year old getting shot for going into someone's garage I do think that man at least deserves manslaughter as he broke one of the main gun safety rules, identify your target, but not every case is like this one at all. I don't think looking at this from a viewpoint of another country try is going to help because you country is not my country and your hometown is not my hometown so there's no point in comparing them.

[Colonelkillabee]

But it does mean a lot for death rates. Nothing for crime rates. But a whole lot less people died from guns in Britain ever since the ban.

And instead they died from knives. Deaths didn't go down, the weapon of choice simply switched. So how does gun banning fix anything exactly?

[raging_monkey]

* hands drinks to monkey and Threat while taking bowl of popcorn *  Thanks, and here you 2 go.  

* drinks drink* thanks

[herkles]

This should be moved to the off topic forums at this rate.

[Colonelkillabee]

I'm done for the moment anyway, so. My wall of text up there's all anyone needs to show this crap with Australia and Britain is bullshit, and they even acknowledged it.

 

As for mages, we've already stated this doesn't compare. You're better off making a comparison of guns to crossbows, and how the pope in real life tried and failed to ban those too. It is a tool. Mages are people, not tools, and tools don't attract demons.

 

End.

[raging_monkey]

What does this have to do with mages

jack ****.. if we were comparing magic schools yeah id be on board but this nah

[Sir DeLoria]

I didn't ignore any of your points, I disproved them and you're butthurt. I also doubt you yourself read my link, because what I said is on point 100 percent.

Lmao, yes, I'm suuure it is. I could pinpoint all the total bull you've written, like the time when you said pools were a more common cause of suicide than guns or when you didn't get that your "pool death" statistic included drownings of all types, everywhere, but ey, how could I? You're always 100% on point
 

And for the record, I am american, but I was born in germany on an army base and lived there as well as france.

Well, cool, good for you. It's the reverse for me, came to Europe from the US.

[Colonelkillabee]

Lmao, yes, I'm suuure it is. I could pinpoint all the total bull you've written, like the time when you said pools were a more common cause of suicide than guns or when you didn't get that your "pool death" statistic included drownings of all types, everywhere, but ey, how could I? You're always 100% on point
 

Well, cool, good for you. It's the reverse for me, came to Europe from the US.

I said in proportion to guns, as in if the number of owners were the same, jackass. That is important because it shows that people will use whatever they have to accomplish their goal if they are truly serious about killing someone, even yourself. If they didn't use guns, they'd use a pool, or knives as Britain shows. Your reading comprehension does you no credit.

 

And to the second point, we were talking about accidental gun deaths and accidental pool deaths, not all types you ignorant little **** stain.

 

You're done here. Give up some supporting evidence like I did or shut the **** up:

 

 

 

 

• In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime
• A 2008 report by the University of Melbourne that analyzed firearms deaths for a period of 100-years in Australia, concluded that the new laws did not have any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.
• A 2011 study published by the Justice Policy Journal examined the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand over a 30 year time period. The results don’t provide any evidence in favor of the belief that banning guns reduces mass shootings. According to the authors:

  “[The results do]not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.”

• A study published in the British Journal of Criminology found that there was no evidence that the NFA [National Firearms Agreement] had any impact on reducing firearm homicide. They did find that it may have helped reduce firearm suicide, but note that societal factors were already reducing suicide rates. Lastly, a 2009 study published by the Australian Institute for Suicide Research examined how the NFA effected suicide rates and found the following:

  “The implemented [firearm] restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference”.

• In an independent research paper titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?,” first published in Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy, Don B. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D., a Canadian criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, examined the correlation between gun laws and death rates. While not new, as gun debates nationwide heat up, the paper has resurfaced in recent days, specifically with firearm advocates.“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction of their findings. In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh.  More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research. 

  The study goes on to say:

  "…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world."

 

[raging_monkey]

Can we calm down please

[Colonelkillabee]

Oh when I throw the fire, I do so with a calm demeanor, believe me. My face is tranquil at the moment.

[raging_monkey]

Oh when I throw the fire, I do so with a calm demeanor, believe me. My face is tranquil at the moment.

rule #1 never ****** off a tranquil right haha

[KaiserShep]

I prefer civilized.

 

You know not every country functions like US ^^; Also we don't have as much crime as you seem to have, it's not Wild West here.

 

I'm all for being civilized, myself. I may, however, have to check civilization at the door if a scumbag is lurking in my house.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Wow...this thread is still going on, surprising

[EmperorSahlertz]

And instead they died from knives. Deaths didn't go down, the weapon of choice simply switched. So how does gun banning fix anything exactly?

Deaths did go down. Crime didn't.

[Colonelkillabee]

Deaths did go down. Crime didn't.

LoL K, I've said enough already so people think what you will. No one's taking US citizen's guns no matter what anyone here thinks, so it's not worth wasting more finger breath.