Advertisement
by Australasia » Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:41 am
by Imperializt Russia » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:02 am
Australasia wrote:If the United States would take an example from the rest of the developed world in regard to gun laws, the ridiculously high gun murder rate in the US would plummet.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Australasia » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:11 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Australasia wrote:If the United States would take an example from the rest of the developed world in regard to gun laws, the ridiculously high gun murder rate in the US would plummet.
Maybe it would.
However, most of the weapons that normally catch the "Assault Weapon" flak, rifles and shotguns, account for pitiful levels of gun violence.
by Imperializt Russia » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:27 am
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by The Parkus Empire » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:35 am
by Australasia » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:47 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:
Does Australia have nearly as many high density population centers? Does Australia live next door to the cartel capital of the world? Does Australia have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world?
by Personal Defense Force » Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:33 am
Australasia wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:Does Australia have nearly as many high density population centers? Does Australia live next door to the cartel capital of the world? Does Australia have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world?
Yeah, that's just one example of how to deal with it. Every other developed country in the world has similar gun laws (and similarly low gun murder rates) - the United States should follow the example of the rest of the developed world.
by Australasia » Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:52 am
Personal Defense Force wrote:Australasia wrote:
Yeah, that's just one example of how to deal with it. Every other developed country in the world has similar gun laws (and similarly low gun murder rates) - the United States should follow the example of the rest of the developed world.
Oh yes, here in a country where 1/12 people are the subject of any crime should follow the legislation of Britain where 1/2 of the population is subject to a violent crime in there lifetime, or australia where 2/3's of the population is subject to a crime in there lifetime.
We may have more gun crime because of more guns, but thats simply a given, we still have less violent crime/homicides/and crimes than any other western country.
by Spirit of Hope » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:16 am
Australasia wrote:Personal Defense Force wrote:
Oh yes, here in a country where 1/12 people are the subject of any crime should follow the legislation of Britain where 1/2 of the population is subject to a violent crime in there lifetime, or australia where 2/3's of the population is subject to a crime in there lifetime.
We may have more gun crime because of more guns, but thats simply a given, we still have less violent crime/homicides/and crimes than any other western country.
Yeah, no:
Also: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008009/article/10671-eng.htm (there's a relevant graph on this page)
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Kernen » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:28 am
Australasia wrote:Personal Defense Force wrote:
Oh yes, here in a country where 1/12 people are the subject of any crime should follow the legislation of Britain where 1/2 of the population is subject to a violent crime in there lifetime, or australia where 2/3's of the population is subject to a crime in there lifetime.
We may have more gun crime because of more guns, but thats simply a given, we still have less violent crime/homicides/and crimes than any other western country.
Yeah, no:
Also: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008009/article/10671-eng.htm (there's a relevant graph on this page)
by Australasia » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:30 am
Kernen wrote:Australasia wrote:
Yeah, no:
(Image)
Also: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008009/article/10671-eng.htm (there's a relevant graph on this page)
Whats your source telling you that gun ownership and the US crime rate are directly linked, as you have been claiming? Obviously, high gun ownership means more gun crime, but, as we've seen countless times in this thread alone, gun laws have negligible effect on violent crime, and often have inverse statistical relationships.
by McNernia » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:31 am
Immoren wrote:'Tis just daft.
by Kernen » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:36 am
Australasia wrote:Kernen wrote:
Whats your source telling you that gun ownership and the US crime rate are directly linked, as you have been claiming? Obviously, high gun ownership means more gun crime, but, as we've seen countless times in this thread alone, gun laws have negligible effect on violent crime, and often have inverse statistical relationships.
Here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg
by Free Soviets » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:21 am
Norjagen wrote:The fact that the entire country seems to be becoming safer, with the exception of those big cities, indicates a problem specific to those areas. A combination of poverty, poor education, widespread, subsidized, even encouraged unemployment, as well as drug problems and gang activity have made veritable war zones out of certain cities; or, more specifically, individual neighborhoods or regions within those cities.
Norjagen wrote:Gun control, more than anything else, is a means of claiming to "do something" about a cultural problem, without offending the people who make up that culture. Because "get your shit together, stop killing each other, and do something productive with your time" is racist or something like that.
by Occupied Deutschland » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:23 am
Australasia wrote:If the United States would take an example from the rest of the developed world in regard to gun laws, the ridiculously high gun murder rate in the US would plummet.
by Occupied Deutschland » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:27 am
Free Soviets wrote:Norjagen wrote:The fact that the entire country seems to be becoming safer, with the exception of those big cities, indicates a problem specific to those areas. A combination of poverty, poor education, widespread, subsidized, even encouraged unemployment, as well as drug problems and gang activity have made veritable war zones out of certain cities; or, more specifically, individual neighborhoods or regions within those cities.
the big cities have actually gotten safer from the peak of our lead-poisoned crime wave far faster than the burbs and rural areas. still less safe, but increasingly close to them today.Norjagen wrote:Gun control, more than anything else, is a means of claiming to "do something" about a cultural problem, without offending the people who make up that culture. Because "get your shit together, stop killing each other, and do something productive with your time" is racist or something like that.
or it could be that since changing people is hard and we know that reducing access to guns works (and seriously, we know that very solidly), we should do the easier thing. because solving the problem is better than wishing for a pony.
by Free Soviets » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:27 am
Uieurnthlaal wrote:Free Soviets wrote: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.
You clearly have never been to England. There is literally no gun violence in England. None. That's not to say that there's no murders, sure there are, but a whole lot less, even accounting for England's smaller population.
That's because, guess what: it's a whole lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife.
by Free Soviets » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:34 am
Occupied Deutschland wrote:
Cities: 1700 --> 700 = about 59% decrease.
Rural: 1000 ---> 500 = about 50% decrease.
Methinks that isn't much of a difference.
by Sevvania » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:37 am
Uieurnthlaal wrote:You clearly have never been to England. There is literally no gun violence in England. None.
by Occupied Deutschland » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:40 am
Free Soviets wrote:Occupied Deutschland wrote:Cities: 1700 --> 700 = about 59% decrease.
Rural: 1000 ---> 500 = about 50% decrease.
Methinks that isn't much of a difference.
meh. sounds like a difference in subjective ranking. the thing to notice, though, is that instead of the difference being 40% between them, it is now half that. in fact, the big cities are now safer than the small ones were when the small ones were the 'safe' places when i was growing up.
by Free Soviets » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:46 am
Occupied Deutschland wrote:Free Soviets wrote:meh. sounds like a difference in subjective ranking. the thing to notice, though, is that instead of the difference being 40% between them, it is now half that. in fact, the big cities are now safer than the small ones were when the small ones were the 'safe' places when i was growing up.
...
And?
I mean, yes, if we look back twenty years then you're entirely correct, but why would we do that? Small ones are still safer than big cities, and the decrease in crime has affected both to a degree that is just barely discernible as different.
Why compare the big cities of today to the small ones of the early 90s?
by Free Soviets » Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:00 am
Rawrckia wrote:The United States borders Canada and Mexico, both of which have lots of guns for sale, on the black market or otherwise (Mexico actually doesn't allow guns for its citizens iirc but the cartels are extremely powerful right now). It's too easy to get them in and out of the country.
by Occupied Deutschland » Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:04 am
Free Soviets wrote:Occupied Deutschland wrote:...
And?
I mean, yes, if we look back twenty years then you're entirely correct, but why would we do that? Small ones are still safer than big cities, and the decrease in crime has affected both to a degree that is just barely discernible as different.
Why compare the big cities of today to the small ones of the early 90s?
because i was responding to somebody who claimed that "the entire country seems to be becoming safer, with the exception of those big cities"?
by Spirit of Hope » Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:21 am
Free Soviets wrote:Rawrckia wrote:The United States borders Canada and Mexico, both of which have lots of guns for sale, on the black market or otherwise (Mexico actually doesn't allow guns for its citizens iirc but the cartels are extremely powerful right now). It's too easy to get them in and out of the country.
mostly out - the cartels get their weapons in the US. restricting access works. the problem is when the neighbors don't.
we are the bad neighbor here.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Aggicificicerous, Ancientania, Hidrandia, Ineva, Kostane, Omphalos, Plan Neonie, Shrillland, Talibanada, The Vooperian Union, Tungstan, Unmet Player, Wisteria and Surrounding Territories
Advertisement