NationStates

South East Europe wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:Excuse me, I can't think of a single country that has no gun violence. Also as has already been stated some countries with strict gun control have higher crime rates.

I didn't say no gun-violence, i said virtually no-gun violence which means almost no gun-violence. That is inaccurate that they have higher crime rates. Compare the UK to the US. 400 gun-related crimes in the UK versus 10,000 gun-related crimes in the US. If you want me to back it up with facts that I have rather than the myths that others have stated, I will gladly supply you with them.

so you would rather have no gun-crime but a shit ton of every other crime?

no gun-crime is not the same as no-homicides

South East Europe wrote:

Nazeroth wrote:
ban pools, they present an unnecessary risk and have caused more deaths due to drowning.

Pools cause a few dozen deaths a year, Guns cause a few thousand deaths a year. So, your point is moot.

a few thousand deaths out of a population of over 350 MILLION

that's hilariously low

By this definition, the Glock 26 model carried by many law enforcement officers is an assault weapon.

Can't these people figure out how to firearm?

South East Europe wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:Excuse me, I can't think of a single country that has no gun violence. Also as has already been stated some countries with strict gun control have higher crime rates.

I didn't say no gun-violence, i said virtually no-gun violence which means almost no gun-violence. That is inaccurate that they have higher crime rates. Compare the UK to the US. 400 gun-related crimes in the UK versus 10,000 gun-related crimes in the US. If you want me to back it up with facts that I have rather than the myths that others have stated, I will gladly supply you with them.

I didn't say larger gun crimes, just more crimes as in non gun crimes. Please also adjust for different population numbers. There are 63 million citizens of the UK and 310 Million citizens of the US. Thus gun crimes work out to:
UK 1 in 157,500
US 1 in 31,000
Substantially different from 400 vs. 10,000

South East Europe wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:Excuse me, I can't think of a single country that has no gun violence. Also as has already been stated some countries with strict gun control have higher crime rates.

I didn't say no gun-violence, i said virtually no-gun violence which means almost no gun-violence. That is inaccurate that they have higher crime rates. Compare the UK to the US. 400 gun-related crimes in the UK versus 10,000 gun-related crimes in the US. If you want me to back it up with facts that I have rather than the myths that others have stated, I will gladly supply you with them.

In the UK, England and Wales alone an average of over 2,000 violent crimes are commited yearly. In the US its 3x lower than that. Add the other two British countries and you'll probably get an even higher rate.

Chernoslavia wrote:

South East Europe wrote:
I didn't say no gun-violence, i said virtually no-gun violence which means almost no gun-violence. That is inaccurate that they have higher crime rates. Compare the UK to the US. 400 gun-related crimes in the UK versus 10,000 gun-related crimes in the US. If you want me to back it up with facts that I have rather than the myths that others have stated, I will gladly supply you with them.

In the UK, England and Wales alone an average of over 2,000 violent crimes are commited yearly. In the US its 3x lower than that. Add the other two British countries and you'll probably get an even higher rate.

It's actually closer to 775 per 100,000 in the UK and 383 per 100,000 in the US, but it is hard to compare crimes due to different definitions of crimes.

EDIT: Also according to the CDC their are 3,000 fatal drownings in the US each year. So not a few hundred...

Chernoslavia wrote:

South East Europe wrote:
I didn't say no gun-violence, i said virtually no-gun violence which means almost no gun-violence. That is inaccurate that they have higher crime rates. Compare the UK to the US. 400 gun-related crimes in the UK versus 10,000 gun-related crimes in the US. If you want me to back it up with facts that I have rather than the myths that others have stated, I will gladly supply you with them.

In the UK, England and Wales alone an average of over 2,000 violent crimes are commited yearly. In the US its 3x lower than that. Add the other two British countries and you'll probably get an even higher rate.

Fortunately there are existing methods for fact checking. Better yet, there are sites that do the work for us.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... violent-c/

Not quite 'Pants on Fire' levels, and it doesn't provide a definitive answer, but it does show that your statement is indisputably false.

Downeistan wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
In the UK, England and Wales alone an average of over 2,000 violent crimes are commited yearly. In the US its 3x lower than that. Add the other two British countries and you'll probably get an even higher rate.

Fortunately there are existing methods for fact checking. Better yet, there are sites that do the work for us.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... violent-c/

Not quite 'Pants on Fire' levels, and it doesn't provide a definitive answer, but it does show that your statement is indisputably false.

It does however indicate a higher level of violent crimes in the UK. Though as mentioned it is hard to compare.

Spirit of Hope wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
In the UK, England and Wales alone an average of over 2,000 violent crimes are commited yearly. In the US its 3x lower than that. Add the other two British countries and you'll probably get an even higher rate.

It's actually closer to 775 per 100,000 in the UK and 383 per 100,000 in the US, but it is hard to compare crimes due to different definitions of crimes.

EDIT: Also according to the CDC their are 3,000 fatal drownings in the US each year. So not a few hundred...

If your referring to how pushing someone is considered a violent crime in the UK, thats also the case here in the US. Not a whole different.

I didn't say anything about drowning.

South East Europe wrote:

Nazeroth wrote:
ban pools, they present an unnecessary risk and have caused more deaths due to drowning.

Pools cause a few dozen deaths a year, Guns cause a few thousand deaths a year. So, your point is moot.

I love how Britains violent crimes per capita and murders are several times higher then the US's ._. as previously stated, twice as many people per capita in Britain will experience a violent crime (1/2) vs the US (1/4 in some areas to 1/8 in most).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... in-US.html

2x more likely to be involved in a violent crime
4x more likely to have your car stolen
58/100 people are involved in/witnessed a crime vs 1/8 in the US

This is second only to Australia.

So, tell me again, removing guns reduces crime how? The two largest gun-control capitals of the world have the highest crime out of all of the 1st world nations, which says more then you ever could.

Downeistan wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
In the UK, England and Wales alone an average of over 2,000 violent crimes are commited yearly. In the US its 3x lower than that. Add the other two British countries and you'll probably get an even higher rate.

Fortunately there are existing methods for fact checking. Better yet, there are sites that do the work for us.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... violent-c/

Not quite 'Pants on Fire' levels, and it doesn't provide a definitive answer, but it does show that your statement is indisputably false.

My mistake it's over 1,000 but its still far higher than the US average.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sb0812.pdf

Chernoslavia wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:
It's actually closer to 775 per 100,000 in the UK and 383 per 100,000 in the US, but it is hard to compare crimes due to different definitions of crimes.

EDIT: Also according to the CDC their are 3,000 fatal drownings in the US each year. So not a few hundred...

If your referring to how pushing someone is considered a violent crime in the UK, thats also the case here in the US. Not a whole different.

I didn't say anything about drowning.

Some one previously had said only a few hundred people died in polls, it was an as answer to that.

Leningrad Union wrote:Why the fuck should a civilian own a gun in the first place?

Hunting, target shooting, self/home defense, and collecting are all pretty good reasons for owning firearms.

Arkinesia wrote:By this definition, the Glock 26 model carried by many law enforcement officers is an assault weapon.

Can't these people figure out how to firearm?

Are they classifying pistols as assault weapons?

Wamitoria wrote:

Arkinesia wrote:By this definition, the Glock 26 model carried by many law enforcement officers is an assault weapon.

Can't these people figure out how to firearm?

Are they classifying pistols as assault weapons?

Yes if it can accept a ten round magazine and has one of the following:
A threaded barrel
A second handgrip
A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel, except a slide that encloses the barrel
or the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
A rather arbitrary and stupid definition, as with all assault weapons bans.

Wamitoria wrote:

Arkinesia wrote:By this definition, the Glock 26 model carried by many law enforcement officers is an assault weapon.

Can't these people figure out how to firearm?

Are they classifying pistols as assault weapons?

CT's AWB has provisions for classifying pistols as "assault weapons", and I believe CA's already does as well.

More reason to say "Fuck California"

Oh, boo bloody hoo.

The Holy Therns wrote:Oh, boo bloody hoo.

Yes indeed.

The Holy Therns wrote:Oh, boo bloody hoo.

A convincing argument, comrade!

Sevvania wrote:

The Holy Therns wrote:Oh, boo bloody hoo.

A convincing argument, comrade!

Just saying it like it is, sweetie.

The Holy Therns wrote:

Sevvania wrote:A convincing argument, comrade!

Just saying it like it is, sweetie.

Next time dude, at least try to put some effort into your "argument" before hitting the submit button.

The Holy Therns wrote:

Sevvania wrote:A convincing argument, comrade!

Just saying it like it is, sweetie.

Yes, it is quite sad seeing this many people in such a state of disagreement.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

The Holy Therns wrote:
Just saying it like it is, sweetie.

Next time dude, at least try to put some effort into your "argument" before hitting the submit button.

What? No, I think he may have hit the nail on the head. The answer to the issue of gun control, gun crime, assault weapons, semi-automatics, and everything is "boo bloody hoo". The rest of us may have brought facts and statistics with us to back up our respective arguments, but we've been going about it all wrong: all we need to do is act condescending of one another. That is how we will reach a solution.

Nazeroth wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:crime in general is decreasing, thanks to us banning lead from paint and gasoline.

but we're decreasing from a ludicrously horrific level of gun violence down to one that is merely ridiculously awful. why should we settle for mere improvement? why should we put up with the unceasing tragedy, given that we know how to end it and nothing of value will be lost?

You just think it's bad because it's thrown all over the news

not i, kiddo. you'll note i explicitly agreed that gun violence is down. i even mentioned the actual cause of that interesting turn of events.

i think its bad because it objectively is, when compared to other countries on a similar level - and even compared to our rather violent cousins back in england, let alone the rest of the english-speaking world. the difference in rates between here and the rest of the developed world should shock the conscience of anyone with an ounce of humanity. it can't be handwaved away.