You know what’s so strange … people make a fuss about 6440 soldiers killed in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in about 10 years, but no one really cares about the people killed in a year by rifles and guns in the US … 8775 (2010) 
especially the gun lobby.
And you know…so strange. People like you don’t seem to care or even want to know how many people use guns to defend themselves and save lives every year. 
But it’s my impression that not only does the other side not care about that, they actually see people that use guns to defend themselves as criminals too, so there you go. And please, please tell me I’m making that up or I’m full of BS. Because I can provide examples.
And you know…so strange. People like you don’t seem to care or even want to know how many people use guns to defend themselves and save live every year. [/quote]
You’re right I don’t care because in all my life I never needed a gun to save myself or anyone else … and I’ll probably never will when I stay away from gun toting people like you …
And you know…so strange. People like you don’t seem to care or even want to know how many people use guns to defend themselves and save live every year. [/quote]
You’re right I don’t care because in all my life I never needed a gun to save myself or anyone else … and I’ll probably never will when I stay away from gun toting people like you …[/quote]
So you’ve obviously never served your country in the military and I can’t say that I’m surprised. Serving in the military requires dedication to something beyond yourself. And people with guns, who you hate and probably disrespect at every turn, guarantee that freedom you have to say that. You sit in arrogant judgment about everyone’s situation because your’s is so secure. And that’s why your side will never win in this debate and people like me will fight you tooth and nail over every single thing.
You’re wrong about that one … my father was a military man, my grandfather was a drill-sergeant and member of the ‘white brigade’ during/after WWII and I was almost a military man myself until I got injured in a crash and they didn’t want me anymore due to complications just before joining …
And I don’t hate people with guns, but I can’t see one reason why an American citizen would need a gun to defend himself or his family … It’s OK to have a sports gun, or hunting or air-rifle, but not war arms, heavy automatic weapons … there is just no reason for that. And no reason to bare arms in public either, transporting arms to a shooting range, packed and tucked away unloaded is OK.
Fight tooth and nail? You have the law on your side, a constitutional interpretation that won’t be challenged for decades. You have an exceptionally powerful lobby group on your side. You have the support even of The president. Your gun rights have never been more safe. Wtf does this paranoia come from? It is entirely injustified by the facts. All I can say is that it is part and parcel of the general level of paranoia among the right. In other threads you decry the threat to the wealthiest and most powerful people as they are an oppressed minority.
Where does this come from? And no matter where can you stop on these threads being a mewling kitten? You are a gun owner and a producer. Act like one.
[quote=“johnny138”]People like you don’t seem to care or even want to know how many people use guns to defend themselves and save lives every year. 
[/quote]
But you’re reading the statistics incorrectly, Johnny.
Take the plain fact that there are four times as many intentional homicides per 100,000 population in the US as in Western Europe. It means that you are four times as likely to be purposely and unlawfully killed in the US as in Western Europe. In other words, would-be killers in the US are four times as effective as would-be killers in Western Europe. They achieve their murderous aim four times as often as their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic.
So how does that correlate with all of those lives you say are being saved by people carrying guns for self-defence? It plainly doesn’t correlate at all, but tells an exactly opposite story. Ordinary people in Western Europe don’t carry guns with which they can defend themselves against would-be assassins, and yet they still manage to have a four times greater chance of avoiding being slain.
How can you reconcile that with your claim that gun possession saves lives? Your claim is most evidently and irrefutably inconsistent with the objective facts. The statistics clearly speak for themselves.
Just to be clear, it’s not in dispute that sometimes a person who’s armed with a gun will be able to use it to prevent an assailant from killing him. But since the ratio of attacks that succeed in slaying the target is four times as great in the US as in Western Europe, where hardly anyone carries or possesses a gun, the only logical assumption to be drawn is that the prevalence of guns in the United States causes far more lives to be lost than saved, in a ratio of at least five lives lost for every one saved.
It’s as black and white a situation as ever there could be. Surely you must see that now, don’t you?
[quote=“Omniloquacious”][quote=“johnny138”]People like you don’t seem to care or even want to know how many people use guns to defend themselves and save lives every year.
[/quote]
But you’re reading the statistics incorrectly, Johnny.
Take the plain fact that there are four times as many intentional homicides per 100,000 population in the US as in Western Europe. It means that you are four times as likely to be purposely and unlawfully killed in the US as in Western Europe. In other words, would-be killers in the US are four times as effective as would-be killers in Western Europe. They achieve their murderous aim four times as often as their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic.
So how does that correlate with all of those lives you say are being saved by people carrying guns for self-defence? It plainly doesn’t correlate at all, but tells an exactly opposite story. Ordinary people in Western Europe don’t carry guns with which they can defend themselves against would-be assassins, and yet they still manage to have a four times greater chance of avoiding being slain.
How can you reconcile that with your claim that gun possession saves lives? Your claim is most evidently and irrefutably inconsistent with the objective facts. The statistics clearly speak for themselves.
Just to be clear, it’s not in dispute that sometimes a person who’s armed with a gun will be able to use it to prevent an assailant from killing him. But since the ratio of attacks that succeed in slaying the target is four times as great in the US as in Western Europe, where hardly anyone carries or possesses a gun, the only logical assumption to be drawn is that the prevalence of guns in the United States causes far more lives to be lost than saved, in a ratio of at least five lives lost for every one saved.
It’s as black and white a situation as ever there could be. Surely you must see that now, don’t you?[/quote]
No, it is not at all black and white.
Let’s assume that “intentional homicide” is defined the same everywhere (a big assumption, surely). Let’s further assume that we can ignore the lack of gun ownership in countries other than the US (after all, homicide does mean the victim dies which is far easier to accomplish using guns). Then the US has seen its rate fall from the mid-5s to 5.0 in 2010. The US rate has fallen despite the widespread growth in concealed-carry laws enacted, the effect of mis-priced risk on the world economy, the culture wars, the poisonous political climate, AND despite the winding down of Iraq.
If private gun ownership leads to an increased chance of “intentional homicide,” then why is it that in the US the “intentional homicide” has FALLEN while by all accounts ammunition sales, gun sales, and concealed-carry laws have exploded in the US? Why isn’t the trend not just up but SPIKED up?
Also, I hate to be rude but here’s the deal. Believe it or not, the US does not aspire to be western Europe. We do not covet any aspect of your life, including your intentional homicide rate. Gun ownership is guaranteed in the US Constitution. That’s a feature, not a bug. The US is never ever going to become the UK, or France, or Germany, or any other western European country - ain’t gonna happen now or ever.
[quote=“flike”]If private gun ownership leads to an increased chance of “intentional homicide,” then why is it that in the US the “intentional homicide” has FALLEN while by all accounts ammunition sales, gun sales, and concealed-carry laws have exploded in the US? Why isn’t the trend not just up but SPIKED up?
[/quote]
That is poor reasoning. Omni is arguing against the notion that guns are saving lives which is clear they aren’t even from the example you have given. If being armed protects Americans then we should see a clear and steady drop in murder and other crimes as the number of guns rises dramatically. But we aren’t. Murder rates started to drop dramatically in the late 80s. We still aren’t sure why.
As for seeing a spike upwards in crime, why would we when you are talking about lawful purchases of weapons? Ordinary people having 10x as many guns is highly unlikely to result in 10x as many crimes now is it? Nor is that true even of criminals.
The only relevant study in such a case would be does a better armed population prevent crimes. It certainly doesn’t seem to.
Here’s a nice graph: The blue line at the top is the US; the other lines are for other advanced countries.
And you know…so strange. People like you don’t seem to care or even want to know how many people use guns to defend themselves and save live every year. [/quote]
You’re right I don’t care because in all my life I never needed a gun to save myself or anyone else … and I’ll probably never will when I stay away from gun toting people like you …[/quote]
So you’ve obviously never served your country in the military and I can’t say that I’m surprised. Serving in the military requires dedication to something beyond yourself. And people with guns, who you hate and probably disrespect at every turn, guarantee that freedom you have to say that. You sit in arrogant judgment about everyone’s situation because your’s is so secure. And that’s why your side will never win in this debate and people like me will fight you tooth and nail over every single thing.[/quote]
Yeah. We should vote for a real American Hero like Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or a Cheney, were he to run.
Oh, almost all Republican politicians dodge the draft? Fascinating.
I heard Limbaugh dodged the draft because he had a giant cyst on his ass.
Cheney? The one who institutionalized the totally awesome practice of torture, dodged the draft 5 times, saying: “I had other priorities.”
Romney became a missionary in France.
Wayne LaPierre of the NRA dodged the draft by getting a family member to claim he had a nervous disorder.
Ted Nugent, the guy that makes tons of money by playing off of conservative stereotypes, dodged the draft by literally shitting his pants.
Liberals are so disgusting. Shame they have more guts when it actually comes to serving the fucking country.
Derpidoo.
[quote=“Chris”]Please note: penis substitutes… I mean “guns”… are highly regulated in Switzerland, unlike the US.
You want the US to follow the Swiss model? Fine with me.[/quote]
I agree. Carry just about anything. Pistols, SMGs, and semi autos. Tight fucking regulations, thorough background checks, mental health checks, and extremely steep penalties. Sounds crazy, but I’m not even playing devil’s jackass right now. Our problem is not so much the existence of guns, but stupid fucking regulations that allow people that should be absolutely no where near guns to have them, because the NRA wants everyone, even literally convicted terrorists, to be able to purchase weapons legally.
[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“flike”]If private gun ownership leads to an increased chance of “intentional homicide,” then why is it that in the US the “intentional homicide” has FALLEN while by all accounts ammunition sales, gun sales, and concealed-carry laws have exploded in the US? Why isn’t the trend not just up but SPIKED up?
[/quote]
That is poor reasoning. Omni is arguing against the notion that guns are saving lives which is clear they aren’t even from the example you have given. If being armed protects Americans then we should see a clear and steady drop in murder and other crimes as the number of guns rises dramatically. But we aren’t. Murder rates started to drop dramatically in the late 80s. We still aren’t sure why.
As for seeing a spike upwards in crime, why would we when you are talking about lawful purchases of weapons? Ordinary people having 10x as many guns is highly unlikely to result in 10x as many crimes now is it? Nor is that true even of criminals.
The only relevant study in such a case would be does a better armed population prevent crimes. It certainly doesn’t seem to.
Here’s a nice graph: The blue line at the top is the US; the other lines are for other advanced countries.
[/quote]
Probably has something to do with money influencing politics, and the disenfranchisement of large portions of the population, as well as the increasing bombardment of inane distractions. In ten years, crime will be at an all-time low, but we’ll be told that militarization of every police force is necessary, because hey, the military industrial complex needs someone to sell those garage sized APCs to.
It’s interesting that this latest recession-depression has not resulted in a spike in crime as is usual. One theory, well regarded too as far as I know, is that the young men who would be doing the crimes have cheap distractions to keep them occupied: namely violent video games and internet porn.
Just another example of how conservatives get everything wrong. 
That’s incorrect, according to the wiki source used. Intentional homicide, as defined, is falling in the US.
My reasoning is excellent.
That’s incorrect, according to the wiki source used. Intentional homicide, as defined, is falling in the US.[/quote]
It has been dropping for 30 years. There is no reason to correlate the latest small drop with an increase in armed citizens. This is just wishful thinking.
And even if according to your logic the murder rate has made a small drop in connection with an EXPLOSION in the number of armed citizens the expense is too great.
It’s like healthcare; the US manages to achieve far less than other countries on a pressing social issue with a far greater cost because it goes about it in the most purblind fashion possible.
Start reaching Canadian levels of murder and we can talk about the GREAT SUCCESS of an EXPLOSION in armed citizens.
[quote=“Mucha Man”]And even if according to your logic the murder rate has made a small drop in connection with an EXPLOSION in the number of armed citizens the expense is too great.
It’s like healthcare; the US manages to achieve far less than other countries on a pressing social issue with a far greater cost because it goes about it in the most purblind fashion possible.
Start reaching Canadian levels of murder and we can talk about the GREAT SUCCESS of an EXPLOSION in armed citizens.[/quote]
As far as I know, we’re even less interested in being Canadian than western European. And pardon me if I fail to respect very much a Canadian’s opinion of US “expense.”
I think we’re doing just fine, thank you. As for why the murder rate is falling here, I’m sure it correlates positively with the rise in political power of the NRA … which I don’t expect a purblind Canadian to appreciate, of course.
Why would i? When someone can’t be bothered to use an original adjective to mock me it is is almost always a sign he had given up on reason. Your last post was drivel. I have no appreciation for it whatsoever.
Oh of course the US is FILLED TO THE BRIM with ‘Oh Canada’ clubs. Red state America is just PACKED with red maple leaf logos. Canada is HUGE in the South.
The fuck out.
Believe me, nobody outside the NE corridor, plus a handful on the left coast and a sprinkling of relatives on the northern border, wants anything from Canada but tourism dollars.
An unremarkable downward trend is statistically irrelevant. There are many other factors to account for that. Their effect would largely correspond to the effect of similar factors in Western Europe, where intentional homicide rates are also falling.
And America is already so super-saturated with guns that fluctuations in the actual number, whether up or down, aren’t likely to make any significant difference to the big picture of gun violence and the danger that guns pose to the life and safety of the average member of American society.
If guns aren’t costing Americans five times as many lives as they save, what’s the explanation for the difference between homicide rates in the US and Western Europe? Are American’s at least five times more violent and murderous than Western Europeans? Why would that be, and where’s the evidence for it?
If the billboard on the truck were true and guns saved 2191 lives per day, then without the guns that would mean over 2200 people would be murdered daily in America. That is about 30-40x the rate of violent death in Iraq at the height of fighting there.
Don’t know, but neither do you.
You prefer to conclude that ‘intentional homicide’ is defined the same way, that US citizens behave the same despite wide cultural differences (eg, Europeans have ceded private gun rights to the state while Americans do not), and the lack of a referent culture in the US (I think Europeans behave in certain ways because they compare themselves to a referent culture, that of the US), but the fact is you can’t be sure. You’re just guessing, and in that spirit I’ll guess that you’ve never owned or used or even fired a firearm in your life.
One thing I know for sure is that private gun ownership isn’t going anywhere here - a good thing.