So the UK with tight gun control laws has 12 homicides per million and the US has 6 per 100,000? That means the US has 5 times the number, so obviously all those guns makes it safer? I think you just shot youself (sorry for the pun) in the foot.
Some facts about guns in the US
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
The point is that if you look at the year the gun laws were enacted, which took guns out of the hands of honest people, the deaths increased! More gun control means more death! See? In 1997 the law was enacted, and the line is going North East, not East or South East!! See?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
It shows the breakdown of percentage of how people die from accidents. Gun accidents are way less than car accidents. The goal of gun haters is to get rid of guns in order to save lives. I say we need to get rid of cars first! That will save way more lives! No?
...and after cars are outlawed I submit an idea that all pools and swimming areas are closed immediately. After all, more people die drowning, trying to have fun, than do people die from gun accidents. Why would we keep allowing people to have pools when we know that people die in them? Pools are for enjoyment, not for dying! There isn't even any type of responsibility check on people that purchase pools and have them installed! Any moron can buy a pool and drown, or neglect a child and let them drown in it!! Get rid of the non-essentials that are killing all our people. Immediately!!! (rolls eyes)
So never mind about the 5x ratio, just see the trend?
Ok, so now Florida is the same rate as the rest of the US, so what?
As far as the UK is concerned, gun homicides were always low compared to knife crime, and the gun laws would have little or no effect. Guns were never in the hands of honest people except for shotguns for hunting, and people going target shooting. There was never a culture of gun ownership to start with. The British are a violent lot and god knows what the homicide rate would be if we all had guns.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
There you go again, thinking that more guns means more death, and that is not the case! Do you know how to read the graphs I posted? Are you denying those numbers and facts?
Apparently, some people just can't tell the difference
Like I said, some facts simply aren't extraordinary. That this is a different thread from, say, Politics subforum discussions of Congressional goings-on, doesn't mean the facts change.
Our neighbor made some erroneous assertions; he can affirmatively back his argument by providing evidence:
What does this have to do with the subject of guns in the U.S.? If the digression had stuck to Dick Cheney shooting his "friend" in the face, that, for all its paucity, would at least be somewhat relevant.
In the case of posts #362, 364, and 366, these are political, not historical, arguments. The latter invokes more of a British parliamentary outlook on the opposition.
In 2008, Democratic presidential candidates had to answer for their votes to support the Bush-era war on terror that was twisted into justification for invading Iraq. This flies in the face of MD's argument in #366. A proper opposition party, according to the standard described in that post, would have prevented the USA PATRIOT Act and other legislation from that period.
When the Republican-crafted Medicare reform in 2005-06 started falling apart, Democrats actually worked to help fix the problems. Compare this to Speaker Boehner telling Republicans that Obamacare was the law of the land; it turns out conservative frustration at that line was misplaced, as by "law of the land", the Speaker meant Republicans would complain about the problem but block any attempt to fix those problems.
Our neighbor can provide some simple examples to make the point clearly:
These are just a few of the mundane facts our neighbor is certainly welcome to address. But here's the question: What does any of this have to do with guns in the United States?
Nothing. And that's the point.
What is this distraction about, then?
This is a nice piece of political rhetoric, but has no historical basis. And what the hell does that have to do with guns in the United States?
Shall we take a time-out to revisit the assertion that Republicans are happy to protect the Constitution after it's rewritten to their satsifaction? Women's health? Civil rights? Voting rights? They'll get around to respecting the Constitution when it's amended to say what they want it to say. Meanwhile, people like Mississippi and Wisconsin, they're happy to skip the usual platitudes about the benefits of legislation in order to brag that they are about to deny the majority of their population a constitutionally-protected right.
What would be the point of that? I mean, the point relevant to the subject of firearms in the United States? Seriously, what is the use?
Balanced against the proposition that many members resent the idea that a thread should stay reasonably on topic, it's always a coin flip.
I'm sure there's a point to this statement. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
____________________
Notes:
O'Donnell, Lawrence. The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell. MSNBC, New York. March 10, 2014. Television. MSNBC.com. March 12, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/republicans-attack-president-obama-on-russia-190784579659
Captain Kremmen said:
Like I said, some facts simply aren't extraordinary. That this is a different thread from, say, Politics subforum discussions of Congressional goings-on, doesn't mean the facts change.
Our neighbor made some erroneous assertions; he can affirmatively back his argument by providing evidence:
"How is that any different than the Dems blocking every and any thing in the past that they could to prevent Republicans from accomplishing goals? You're kidding me, right?"
What does this have to do with the subject of guns in the U.S.? If the digression had stuck to Dick Cheney shooting his "friend" in the face, that, for all its paucity, would at least be somewhat relevant.
In the case of posts #362, 364, and 366, these are political, not historical, arguments. The latter invokes more of a British parliamentary outlook on the opposition.
In 2008, Democratic presidential candidates had to answer for their votes to support the Bush-era war on terror that was twisted into justification for invading Iraq. This flies in the face of MD's argument in #366. A proper opposition party, according to the standard described in that post, would have prevented the USA PATRIOT Act and other legislation from that period.
When the Republican-crafted Medicare reform in 2005-06 started falling apart, Democrats actually worked to help fix the problems. Compare this to Speaker Boehner telling Republicans that Obamacare was the law of the land; it turns out conservative frustration at that line was misplaced, as by "law of the land", the Speaker meant Republicans would complain about the problem but block any attempt to fix those problems.
Our neighbor can provide some simple examples to make the point clearly:
Show us, please ...
• ... the Democratic senator who worked on a major legislative package, and then opposed his own work.
• ... the Democraic senate leader who filibustered his own bill.
• ... the Democratic senator who defends his participation in "negotiating gangs" by bragging that such participation is in bad faith.
• ... the outpouring of Democratic sentiment arguing that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Georgia was the fault of President Bush's weakness. As Lawrence O'Donnell reminded Monday:
• ... the Democratic senator who worked on a major legislative package, and then opposed his own work.
• ... the Democraic senate leader who filibustered his own bill.
• ... the Democratic senator who defends his participation in "negotiating gangs" by bragging that such participation is in bad faith.
• ... the outpouring of Democratic sentiment arguing that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Georgia was the fault of President Bush's weakness. As Lawrence O'Donnell reminded Monday:
"Here in the United States, Republicans are tripping all over themselves to find ways of blaming a Russian invasion on the president of the United States, something they never did when Republicans occupied the White House. Russian invasions have occurred during Republican presidencies from Eisenhower to George W. Bush without a single Republican member of Congress blaming that on the Republican president. But that was then."
These are just a few of the mundane facts our neighbor is certainly welcome to address. But here's the question: What does any of this have to do with guns in the United States?
Nothing. And that's the point.
What is this distraction about, then?
"Since the Republicans protect the Constitution, instead of tearing it to pieces like the Dems try to do, then yes, I certainly am Republican."
This is a nice piece of political rhetoric, but has no historical basis. And what the hell does that have to do with guns in the United States?
Shall we take a time-out to revisit the assertion that Republicans are happy to protect the Constitution after it's rewritten to their satsifaction? Women's health? Civil rights? Voting rights? They'll get around to respecting the Constitution when it's amended to say what they want it to say. Meanwhile, people like Mississippi and Wisconsin, they're happy to skip the usual platitudes about the benefits of legislation in order to brag that they are about to deny the majority of their population a constitutionally-protected right.
What would be the point of that? I mean, the point relevant to the subject of firearms in the United States? Seriously, what is the use?
Balanced against the proposition that many members resent the idea that a thread should stay reasonably on topic, it's always a coin flip.
I'm sure there's a point to this statement. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
____________________
Notes:
O'Donnell, Lawrence. The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell. MSNBC, New York. March 10, 2014. Television. MSNBC.com. March 12, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/republicans-attack-president-obama-on-russia-190784579659
And there you have it, we too are a violent lot and adding more and bigger weapons and ammo is not going to solve the problem. Responsible gun ownership is a thing of the past, the NRA wants you to have a gun whether you want one or not, because they would that everyone carry. Me, I do not wanna be a cowboy,baby! Personally I would never use Florida nor Texas as a role model, I would be suspect that all those so called self-defense shootings were probably homicides.
Another point 2/3rds of gun deaths are sucides. Reducing guns and gun ownership saves lives. Owning a gun creates a jump in sucide rates because it's easy. That plays a large factor in sucide rates. People promoting guns don't give a damn about saving lives they care about continuing a manly man culture
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
People trying to take away all the guns don't give a damn about lives either, else they would have got rid of cars, matches, and pools by now. Go figure!
...don't even get me started on cell phones, airplanes, ladders, and lawn mowers!
....and are you recommending that we take away bridges, so people can't jump from them? Tall buildings too?
Deaths are 5 times higher in the US where there are more guns. Are you denying that fact?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
No. Are you denying that small children drown in pools?
Oh dear. Not the pool thing again. Done this so many times. The discussion is about guns not pools. That's what the thread title is about. If you want to discuss pools start athread about it. You're off-topic with your comment.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You are so dishonest that you can't answer a simple question. I'm done replying to you.
I think the comparison between cars and guns is a fair one.
Both cause extra deaths, and by about the same amount.
So, on any particular day, if you are using a car when you could be using public transport, that is the equivalent of carrying a gun.
So, throw your gun away and catch the bus to work.
The other Texan types, riding around in their Mustangs, with cowboy boots and hats,
toting $1000 guns, will laugh at you, call you a wimp maybe, but you'll live longer.
Yeah, pools, cars, buses etc etc
I could also trip over the lounge chair and crack my skull...
But they weren't built to kill were they?
Dishonesty is the hallmark of people obsessed with something that society in general is trying to take away from them.
All it needs is a strong government with balls, just as was illustrated in Australia with the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.
More stringent gun laws was immediatley brought into play and we have not had anything like a massacre since.
That's your choice. You want to discuss guns and not pools, let me know.
Paddoboy, what was the popular consensus in Oz when the laws were introduced? Were most people OK with it, or was it against popular opinion?
Most city people for it...Some country people against it
There were plenty of protests, noisy minority and all that.
And just a point of Interest, the laws were introduced by the Howard led Liberal/Country Party...our conservative party....I'm a Labor party man, and like plenty of other Labor people, supported it.
Thanks. In the US though, there's a clear majority in favour of gun ownership, and it was getting bigger, I think. Any party that campaigned for gun control would surely lose.
Thanks. In the US though, there's a clear majority in favour of gun ownership, and it was getting bigger, I think. Any party that campaigned for gun control would surely lose.