I hate guns.

And they didn't use a GUN OR KNIFE when this went off killing 20,000 people!

PO7029.jpg
 
some freak in Belgium just stabbed the shit out of little kids with a knife. Better ban that shit too.

A women worker, and 2 children dead, and 10 others children and 2 adults slashed, and stabed.

10 emergency surgeries to save the lives of the children form the last report I saw.

The 2 dead children were under 3 years old.

Better yet ban the asshole who did this from life.

Long drop short rope.
 
I heard some of the workers protected the kids with their bodies, I find that extremely honorable.

Ban knives and you get Karate, register the hands themselves to the government/overlords as deadly and not your own. See why my original point guns = freedom is valid?
 
some freak in Belgium just stabbed the shit out of little kids with a knife. Better ban that shit too.

In countries with strict gun control, we just don't see the replacement of gun homicides using other means.

The homicide rate in the USA is four times that of the UK. People who can't get a gun, don't go stabbing people instead, or at least, nowhere near as often.

Also, you can't use one isolated case to try and prove a point. On the day this one case happened in Belgium, on average, 81 people were killed with guns in the USA, and 176 injured. (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html#)

There's nothing that can be said to diminish the US death toll. Nothing. If you are happy living with it, fine, but don't try and excuse your way out it; it is an appalling number.
 
In countries with strict gun control, we just don't see the replacement of gun homicides using other means.

The homicide rate in the USA is four times that of the UK. People who can't get a gun, don't go stabbing people instead, or at least, nowhere near as often.

Also, you can't use one isolated case to try and prove a point. On the day this one case happened in Belgium, on average, 81 people were killed with guns in the USA, and 176 injured. (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html#)

There's nothing that can be said to diminish the US death toll. Nothing. If you are happy living with it, fine, but don't try and excuse your way out it; it is an appalling number.

The population of the U.S. is 4 times that of England.

Besides:

The British Called and They Want their Guns Back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE
 
So no one agrees?

I wouldn't mind seeing the manufacture of handguns ended, but I think overall you are being a tad alarmist. We kill each other less and less every year, despite our improvements to the implements designed to do so.
 
In Miami last night there was an AK 47 used to kill 3 people who were teenagers and sprayed out enough bullets to injure 7 other people! Yes, guns are really needed, especially assult rifles! Let's all go out and make the arms dealers happy and buy a few ourselves...NOT! :mad:
 
In Miami last night there was an AK 47 used to kill 3 people who were teenagers and sprayed out enough bullets to injure 7 other people! Yes, guns are really needed, especially assult rifles! Let's all go out and make the arms dealers happy and buy a few ourselves...NOT! :mad:

That is tragic but AK47s are made in other countries, the gun was obviously illegally purchased.

Do you think that banning the legal purchase of firearms would prevent something like this? If you do then how did you come to this conclusion?
 
Are you being wantonly ignorant? Population size does not matter, we are talking about the MURDER RATE not THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MURDERS.

The USA kills four times as many people PER CAPITA. Get that?

Really, and we have 18 times more guns per capita than Great Britain, and our homicide rates are falling, yours are rising, explaine that?

All of these countries have lower rates of gun ownership yet they out rank the U.S. in homicide.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_per...

#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people

There is also a difference in the way we count our Homicides versus the way Great Britain counts it's homicides:


http://www.secondamendmentcenter.org/debate5.asp

JOYCE MALCOLM: Hemenway is wrong when he argues that levels of crime in England and the U.S. in the last two decades are quite close, apart from the homicide rate. Since 1995, the English rate for every type of violent crime, with the exception of murder and rape, has been far higher than in the U.S. For example, based on a U.S. Department of Justice study, in 1995 there were 8.8 assaults per 1,000 persons in the United States, compared with 20 assaults per 1,000 in England and Wales (their statistics are grouped). Robberies in England and Wales were 1.4 times higher, and burglary was nearly double the U.S. rate. Since then, British figures for violent crime have climbed, while ours have dropped. You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York.
A U.N. study of 18 industrialized countries, including the U.S., published in July 2002, found the rate of crime, including the most serious crime, in England and Wales to be the highest. A survey published in July 2003 found an astounding one in five Britons had been a victim of crime in the past year.

While for two centuries our homicide rate has been much higher than the English rate, the two are now converging. In 1981 the U.S. rate was 8.7 times the English rate; last year (2002) it was only 3.5 times the English rate.

Furthermore, the way the police count murder is inflated in the U.S., where the FBI encourages the police to count every suspicious death as murder; by contrast, the English police “massage down” the murder rate by removing cases where there is a final judgment that it was self-defense or accidental.

JOYCE MALCOLM: I appreciate Saul Cornell’s confusion, particularly since the British government produces two different sets of statistics and regularly changes the way it calculates these. In addition to a 91 percent increase in contact crime in inner cities between 1991 and 1995, Scotland Yard reported that violent crime more than doubled from 1997 to 2001. For the first time, some police are now armed. But the most relevant statistics for this dialogue are gun crimes, and there is no doubt about the great increase in these. In the five years after the 1997 handgun ban, handgun crime in Britain doubled. In 2002 alone, gun crime rose by 35 percent, and handgun crime rose by 46 percent. English efforts to reduce the number of privately owned guns have succeeded only in disarming law-abiding people, but they have failed to disarm those inclined to misuse weapons.
 
Buffalo, your argument smacks of desperation. You quote a fact;

"You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York."

What are the gun laws like in New York? Oh that's right, you aren't allowed to carry guns in New York, thus proving the point that removing guns lowers crime!

Do you comprehend what you paste ever?

Also, that list of countries you pasted, hardly comparable to the USA or UK, really. Apples to Oranges, and a straw man. Rather pathetic.

On your other stats, well, if 'gun defence' stats a la Kleck are to be believed, gun owning Americans use their guns to prevent crime 2.5 million times per year, which outstrips recorded crime, and puts America WAY above the uk for attempted robbery etc, meaning guns aren't keeping you safe, because you are victims more often than your unarmed British counterparts.

Sorry, but you just can't argue your way out of this one.
 
Back
Top