planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:02 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 1736
Johnston wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
Enter the six year old kid from Utah who turned up at school today with a gun so he could 'keep himself safe'. Or the four year old who shot himself in the head or the five year old who shot herself in the leg on Tuesday night playing at home. More guns is definitely the answer.....


Stupid question but who gave the kids the guns?

Stupid question 2. Are the majority of gun owners stupid enough to leave guns in reach of their kids?

To me the majority of legal owners are getting tarred with the same brush as a few asshole owners, illegal owners and crackpots.

Sure lets ban fire extinguishers. Nut jobs can turn them into flame throwers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/flame ... 87302.html

Good points, however, people are stupid and lack responsibility or let their guard drop when such dangerous things become common place. One things for certain, a ban on guns would mean none of those three things could have happened.

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
PzR Slim wrote:
Good points, however, people are stupid and lack responsibility or let their guard drop when such dangerous things become common place. One things for certain, a ban on guns would mean none of those three things could have happened.



Except for those with illegal guns.


Thing is how far do you go to legislate for other peoples stupidity?
Do we ban 4x4s because some we hard nut takes his Dads for a joy ride and mows down a queue at a bus stop?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 2680
PzR Slim wrote:
Johnston wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
Enter the six year old kid from Utah who turned up at school today with a gun so he could 'keep himself safe'. Or the four year old who shot himself in the head or the five year old who shot herself in the leg on Tuesday night playing at home. More guns is definitely the answer.....


Stupid question but who gave the kids the guns?

Stupid question 2. Are the majority of gun owners stupid enough to leave guns in reach of their kids?

To me the majority of legal owners are getting tarred with the same brush as a few asshole owners, illegal owners and crackpots.

Sure lets ban fire extinguishers. Nut jobs can turn them into flame throwers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/flame ... 87302.html

Good points, however, people are stupid and lack responsibility or let their guard drop when such dangerous things become common place. One things for certain, a ban on guns would mean none of those three things could have happened.

well another problem with kids hurting themselves could simply be the fact that kids play with toy guns and when you're 4 it could be hard to tell the difference between real and imagination/pretend! I was at my kids nursery Christmas party last night and a 4 year old got a toy gun from Santa, the first thing he did was go to his teacher a 'shoot' her! So what's to stop kids doing the same with a real gun (except the safety on some)?

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1358
Ok. Let's get things straight.

Fire extinguishers save thousands of lives and are built as a safety device. A few do stupid things with them.

4x4's are designed to get people around and a few people do stupid things with them.

Most guns are designed to kill things.

Yep, good comparisons I must say.......

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1358
minchy wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
Johnston wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
Enter the six year old kid from Utah who turned up at school today with a gun so he could 'keep himself safe'. Or the four year old who shot himself in the head or the five year old who shot herself in the leg on Tuesday night playing at home. More guns is definitely the answer.....


Stupid question but who gave the kids the guns?

Stupid question 2. Are the majority of gun owners stupid enough to leave guns in reach of their kids?

To me the majority of legal owners are getting tarred with the same brush as a few asshole owners, illegal owners and crackpots.

Sure lets ban fire extinguishers. Nut jobs can turn them into flame throwers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/flame ... 87302.html

Good points, however, people are stupid and lack responsibility or let their guard drop when such dangerous things become common place. One things for certain, a ban on guns would mean none of those three things could have happened.

well another problem with kids hurting themselves could simply be the fact that kids play with toy guns and when you're 4 it could be hard to tell the difference between real and imagination/pretend! I was at my kids nursery Christmas party last night and a 4 year old got a toy gun from Santa, the first thing he did was go to his teacher a 'shoot' her! So what's to stop kids doing the same with a real gun (except the safety on some)?


sorry, but do you mean your child's nursery chose guns as presents for Santa to give out to pre school children?

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 2680
Asphalt_World wrote:
*snip*
sorry, but do you mean your child's nursery chose guns as presents for Santa to give out to pre school children?

God no! The patents brought in the presents for Santa to give to their kids.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1358
Thank goodness for that..... lol

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Asphalt_World wrote:
Ok. Let's get things straight.

Fire extinguishers save thousands of lives and are built as a safety device. A few do stupid things with them.

4x4's are designed to get people around and a few people do stupid things with them.

Most guns are designed to kill things.

Yep, good comparisons I must say.......



Most guns are used in a safe and responsible manner and funnily enough, don't kill people. Only (When talking legal firearms) a relatively small percentage from what I can see do stupid things and kill other people. I now loads of people with legal guns. One lives two doors up and the worst thing any of them has killed has been a rabbit.

Just like a relatively small percentage of people kill with Fire extinguishers OR deaths from illegally driven 4x4s. A small percentage kill with legal guns.


Just because something is designed to kill people doesn't mean they are used that way. If you go down the route of banning things designed to kill people. Should we ban space flight? Those rockets were originally designed to propel missiles ;) Saturn 5 being an evolution of the V-2 and designed by the same bloke, the Soyuz still being used being of the Russian R-7 ICBM family. GPS systems originally designed to kill people in guided missiles . A lot of modern day stuff comes from things designed to kill. War being the mother of invention and all that.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1358
I just don't get anyone having the point of view that some kind of tightening of gun ownership is not worth trying. It's surely a no brainer. It's not like someone who really needs a gun can't have one. If it removes a number of guns from circulation then that HAS to be worth it.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Just saw an arms dealer mention on facebook that they will discontinue online sales of firearms immediately, and the 9,000+ hilarious insults and threats hurled their way. I've never seen so many dumb and poorly written comments. Just lending to the uneducated hillbilly gun owner stereotype :tisk tisk:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1309
Asphalt_World wrote:
I just don't get anyone having the point of view that some kind of tightening of gun ownership is not worth trying. It's surely a no brainer. It's not like someone who really needs a gun can't have one. If it removes a number of guns from circulation then that HAS to be worth it.


Problem is people are stupid. Some feel owning guns empowers them.

_________________
Lewis Hamilton Fan's Mood Race by Race: :( 8) 8) 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 1736
Johnston wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
Good points, however, people are stupid and lack responsibility or let their guard drop when such dangerous things become common place. One things for certain, a ban on guns would mean none of those three things could have happened.



Except for those with illegal guns.


Thing is how far do you go to legislate for other peoples stupidity?
Do we ban 4x4s because some we hard nut takes his Dads for a joy ride and mows down a queue at a bus stop?

If it was only illegal guns they had to worry about there would be far fewer such incidents so that kind of proves my point. And anything could be used as a weapon, even a carrot if you know what you're about, however, surely limiting the availability of items specifically designed to kill people would limit the opportunity for such items to cause death?

I grew up shooting, my dad still has shotguns in his house but now I have my own place and a daughter I wouldn't dream of having a gun here. I don't need one and and the fact that the US has a gun homicide rate per 100,000 population that is 32 times that of the UK I feel I've probably got the right idea.

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:53 pm
Posts: 410
Banning guns is a bit extreme I agree with that much, hunting is a huge sport in America, they have whole TV shows on it, the issue is CONTROL.

The US can no longer look at its constitution for the right to bare arms, it's severly outdated going back to their war of independence and to stop, any monarch from trying to take over (go look up the actual wording it is to the same effect).

I read in a newpaper (not online but will look for source!) that MORE people in the US are killed by guns, than in Afghanistan, the global news usually only picks up on the big ones like at school and where fatalities are higher, another chilling fact, one of the biggest killers around the world is the roads, and cars... In the US, Guns kill more people than road traffic accidents.

The times of sitting on your behinds and saying 'nothing is wrong' is way way pass, something must be done, these deaths really a price worth paying for that little tiny bit of freedom?

But there is another area that needs better control and management, and that is whatever the US does in terms of Mental Heath, it is all very well saying nutcases should not have guns, but how do you find those with often a hidden mental illness? I just think it is rather stupid that it seems (forgive me if wrong) that in some parts of America, any adult can walk into a gun store and wish to buy a gun, just better license rules should be enough, and of course a mental health check.

There is so much that needs to be changed, and should have been changed a long long long time ago, how many more lives need to be lost before we see some real change?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 151
Location: USA
Angel De La Muerte wrote:
Banning guns is a bit extreme I agree with that much, hunting is a huge sport in America, they have whole TV shows on it, the issue is CONTROL.

The US can no longer look at its constitution for the right to bare arms, it's severly outdated going back to their war of independence and to stop, any monarch from trying to take over (go look up the actual wording it is to the same effect).

I read in a newpaper (not online but will look for source!) that MORE people in the US are killed by guns, than in Afghanistan, the global news usually only picks up on the big ones like at school and where fatalities are higher, another chilling fact, one of the biggest killers around the world is the roads, and cars... In the US, Guns kill more people than road traffic accidents.

The times of sitting on your behinds and saying 'nothing is wrong' is way way pass, something must be done, these deaths really a price worth paying for that little tiny bit of freedom?


But there is another area that needs better control and management, and that is whatever the US does in terms of Mental Heath, it is all very well saying nutcases should not have guns, but how do you find those with often a hidden mental illness? I just think it is rather stupid that it seems (forgive me if wrong) that in some parts of America, any adult can walk into a gun store and wish to buy a gun, just better license rules should be enough, and of course a mental health check.

There is so much that needs to be changed, and should have been changed a long long long time ago, how many more lives need to be lost before we see some real change?





I DISAGREE WITH YOU!

GUN MURDERS PER 100,000 PEOPLE


1. Honduras - 69

2. El Salvador - 40

3. Jamaica - 39

4 Venezuela - 39

5. Guatemala - 35



The United States ranks 28th, with a rate of 3 per 100,000 people



-----------------------------------------

NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED BY FIREARMS IN 2010



1. Brazil - 34,678

2. Colombia - 12,539

3. Mexico - 11,309

4. Venezuela - 11,115

5. United States - 9,146


IN 2010 OVER 11,000 people have been killed in Afghanastan

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
First of all, looking at murders is different than looking at gun related crime. Or do you only care about people murdered? Cause I care about the accidental deaths, the gun injuries, the armed robberies, armed rape, etc.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 151
Location: USA
ashley313 wrote:
First of all, looking at murders is different than looking at gun related crime. Or do you only care about people murdered? Cause I care about the accidental deaths, the gun injuries, the armed robberies, armed rape, etc.



READ:
NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED BY FIREARMS IN 2010



1. Brazil - 34,678

2. Colombia - 12,539

3. Mexico - 11,309

4. Venezuela - 11,115

5. United States - 9,146

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Yes, and there is a lot more to the gun issue than gun deaths. Gun CRIME is just as, if not more significant.

And Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela are really good company on that list, totally places we want to emulate.....

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:53 pm
Posts: 410
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Angel De La Muerte wrote:
Banning guns is a bit extreme I agree with that much, hunting is a huge sport in America, they have whole TV shows on it, the issue is CONTROL.

The US can no longer look at its constitution for the right to bare arms, it's severly outdated going back to their war of independence and to stop, any monarch from trying to take over (go look up the actual wording it is to the same effect).

I read in a newpaper (not online but will look for source!) that MORE people in the US are killed by guns, than in Afghanistan, the global news usually only picks up on the big ones like at school and where fatalities are higher, another chilling fact, one of the biggest killers around the world is the roads, and cars... In the US, Guns kill more people than road traffic accidents.

The times of sitting on your behinds and saying 'nothing is wrong' is way way pass, something must be done, these deaths really a price worth paying for that little tiny bit of freedom?


But there is another area that needs better control and management, and that is whatever the US does in terms of Mental Heath, it is all very well saying nutcases should not have guns, but how do you find those with often a hidden mental illness? I just think it is rather stupid that it seems (forgive me if wrong) that in some parts of America, any adult can walk into a gun store and wish to buy a gun, just better license rules should be enough, and of course a mental health check.

There is so much that needs to be changed, and should have been changed a long long long time ago, how many more lives need to be lost before we see some real change?





I DISAGREE WITH YOU!

GUN MURDERS PER 100,000 PEOPLE


1. Honduras - 69

2. El Salvador - 40

3. Jamaica - 39

4 Venezuela - 39

5. Guatemala - 35



The United States ranks 28th, with a rate of 3 per 100,000 people



-----------------------------------------

NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED BY FIREARMS IN 2010



1. Brazil - 34,678

2. Colombia - 12,539

3. Mexico - 11,309

4. Venezuela - 11,115

5. United States - 9,146


IN 2010 OVER 11,000 people have been killed in Afghanastan


so just 2000 off from what is what could be described as AN ACTIVE WARZONE...

The fact that you are in the top 5, and call your country and good place, land of the free, and consider it one of the safest places in the world, just goes to show how bad the situation is! there are what 140 countries? and US is no.5 your stats sir


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
PzR Slim wrote:
If it was only illegal guns they had to worry about there would be far fewer such incidents so that kind of proves my point. And anything could be used as a weapon, even a carrot if you know what you're about, however, surely limiting the availability of items specifically designed to kill people would limit the opportunity for such items to cause death?

I grew up shooting, my dad still has shotguns in his house but now I have my own place and a daughter I wouldn't dream of having a gun here. I don't need one and and the fact that the US has a gun homicide rate per 100,000 population that is 32 times that of the UK I feel I've probably got the right idea.


I've never had a gun, shot a bit in cadets and almost got one for some pest control on someone elses land but never did because it was just to much of a pain in the arse to get a licence due to living arrangements at the time.

But as you probably can tell by the location I know a few people with illegal guns (Anyone in NI who says they don't are very naive). I have never known anyone with an legal gun to do anything illegal with it. Were as knee cappings where a weekly experience in the estate I lived.

Like I said before from what I have read previous I believe that most gum crime is done with illegal fire arms. so saying legal ones are the problem because some kid went nut job with his Dads guns. To me is akin to jumping on the band wagon. When what is there 9000approx fire arms murders a year in the us the mass stuff from Daddies arsenal is small biscuits. And whose to say those nut jobs wouldn't just find something else to use. Like if they are deranged enough to take a gun to a school or cinema they might just be unhinged enough to find another way.

Sure maybe they need to tighten up the laws regarding the security of guns, who has access etc. I don't know because I don't know what they are over there. Don't they already have a ballistic database for all guns sold now?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1042
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
...

NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED BY FIREARMS IN 2010



1. Brazil - 34,678

2. Colombia - 12,539

3. Mexico - 11,309

4. Venezuela - 11,115

5. United States - 9,146


IN 2010 OVER 11,000 people have been killed in Afghanastan


thank you for the statistics.

so, if I had a choice what would I choose?
Brazil? naah, there is a war between a military police and drug gangs...
Colombia? naah, there is high rate of crime, kidnapping and drug crime...
Mexico? naah, there is a war between drug gangs, police etc.
Venezuela? naah, crime rate grows every year there and there is little punishment by the authorities
Afganistan? naah, there is war - either Taliban or Americans might kill me
United States? apparently it is a safe place. should go there ;) there is no drug wars, no war at all.

Or maybe I can go Europe:
as an example, UK: 2011, murders by guns - 58
Population - about 70mil people.
and I still can legally own the gun there

by the way. there was an argument about 'illegal guns' that are bed. One well know fact - most of the illegal guns begun life as legal. They didn't materialise out of thin air (unless one is a creationist ;) ). some one bought the gun and then it was either stolen or lost (apart from those brought from military zones, but it would be naive and stupid to suggest that all illegal guns are brought from there).

One thing that friend from police in one of the West European countries told me. When they confiscate illegal guns here in Europe, about half of them are 'legal handguns' from US, brought via black market.

In Mexico - 70% of drug cartel guns are brought from US where they were bought as legal guns in shops. (guess about main direction of drug trafficking)

So maybe it is time for the US state to start working for the money they are getting from US citizens and do something (I am not pro-ban person, more about control and ban on semi-automatic weapon)

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:54 pm
Posts: 594
Angel De La Muerte wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Angel De La Muerte wrote:
Banning guns is a bit extreme I agree with that much, hunting is a huge sport in America, they have whole TV shows on it, the issue is CONTROL.

The US can no longer look at its constitution for the right to bare arms, it's severly outdated going back to their war of independence and to stop, any monarch from trying to take over (go look up the actual wording it is to the same effect).

I read in a newpaper (not online but will look for source!) that MORE people in the US are killed by guns, than in Afghanistan, the global news usually only picks up on the big ones like at school and where fatalities are higher, another chilling fact, one of the biggest killers around the world is the roads, and cars... In the US, Guns kill more people than road traffic accidents.

The times of sitting on your behinds and saying 'nothing is wrong' is way way pass, something must be done, these deaths really a price worth paying for that little tiny bit of freedom?


But there is another area that needs better control and management, and that is whatever the US does in terms of Mental Heath, it is all very well saying nutcases should not have guns, but how do you find those with often a hidden mental illness? I just think it is rather stupid that it seems (forgive me if wrong) that in some parts of America, any adult can walk into a gun store and wish to buy a gun, just better license rules should be enough, and of course a mental health check.

There is so much that needs to be changed, and should have been changed a long long long time ago, how many more lives need to be lost before we see some real change?





I DISAGREE WITH YOU!

GUN MURDERS PER 100,000 PEOPLE


1. Honduras - 69

2. El Salvador - 40

3. Jamaica - 39

4 Venezuela - 39

5. Guatemala - 35



The United States ranks 28th, with a rate of 3 per 100,000 people



-----------------------------------------

NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED BY FIREARMS IN 2010



1. Brazil - 34,678

2. Colombia - 12,539

3. Mexico - 11,309

4. Venezuela - 11,115

5. United States - 9,146


IN 2010 OVER 11,000 people have been killed in Afghanastan


so just 2000 off from what is what could be described as AN ACTIVE WARZONE...

The fact that you are in the top 5, and call your country and good place, land of the free, and consider it one of the safest places in the world, just goes to show how bad the situation is! there are what 140 countries? and US is no.5 your stats sir


Just to make the stat better for you there are 196 countries ;)

_________________
http://rachie-d18.deviantart.com/ - Where I do drawings and such.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:08 pm
Posts: 865
ashley313 wrote:
Yes, and there is a lot more to the gun issue than gun deaths. Gun CRIME is just as, if not more significant.

And Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela are really good company on that list, totally places we want to emulate.....


Agreed, I travel extensively - been to 'dangerous' places Lebanon, Middle-East, Africa etc. and the only place I have seen a gun pulled on someone (unfortunately me) was in LA, not that this has any bearing on this argument.

Don't get me wrong I love the US as a country (and have actually thought about moving there), but for an outsider looking in I really don't get why some people cite the second amendment in these arguments like it's 'the only way'....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 129
Location: Dominion of Canada
Inappropriate post removed.

_________________
Sebastian Vettel - Most successful driver on the 2013 grid!

Supporter of Sebastian Vettel, Mark Webber, Sergio Perez, Jenson Button, Red Bull, Sauber, Williams and Caterham.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Denorth wrote:
thank you for the statistics.

so, if I had a choice what would I choose?
Brazil? naah, there is a war between a military police and drug gangs...
Colombia? naah, there is high rate of crime, kidnapping and drug crime...
Mexico? naah, there is a war between drug gangs, police etc.
Venezuela? naah, crime rate grows every year there and there is little punishment by the authorities
Afganistan? naah, there is war - either Taliban or Americans might kill me
United States? apparently it is a safe place. should go there ;) there is no drug wars, no war at all.

Or maybe I can go Europe:
as an example, UK: 2011, murders by guns - 58
Population - about 70mil people.
and I still can legally own the gun there

by the way. there was an argument about 'illegal guns' that are bed. One well know fact - most of the illegal guns begun life as legal. They didn't materialise out of thin air (unless one is a creationist ;) ). some one bought the gun and then it was either stolen or lost (apart from those brought from military zones, but it would be naive and stupid to suggest that all illegal guns are brought from there).

One thing that friend from police in one of the West European countries told me. When they confiscate illegal guns here in Europe, about half of them are 'legal handguns' from US, brought via black market.

In Mexico - 70% of drug cartel guns are brought from US where they were bought as legal guns in shops. (guess about main direction of drug trafficking)

So maybe it is time for the US state to start working for the money they are getting from US citizens and do something (I am not pro-ban person, more about control and ban on semi-automatic weapon)


That UK stat may be skewed though. I remember having this discussion on another forum on another occasion someone went fruit loopy. The UK stats were pulled out. How ever when I looked deeper the UK stat given for some reason it was a little off. Can't mind the exact reason but it either didn't include NI despite being UK or didn't include the old paramilitary stuff. Something tells me it was the latter. But either way it was sorta fudged.

I dunno about most illegal guns once being legal. Remember the likes of ghaddafi were selling people guns. So yes at one time they may have been legal but not in the country used at least.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Posts: 409
Denorth wrote:
by the way. there was an argument about 'illegal guns' that are bed. One well know fact - most of the illegal guns begun life as legal. They didn't materialise out of thin air (unless one is a creationist ;) ). some one bought the gun and then it was either stolen or lost (apart from those brought from military zones, but it would be naive and stupid to suggest that all illegal guns are brought from there).

One thing that friend from police in one of the West European countries told me. When they confiscate illegal guns here in Europe, about half of them are 'legal handguns' from US, brought via black market.

In Mexico - 70% of drug cartel guns are brought from US where they were bought as legal guns in shops. (guess about main direction of drug trafficking)

So maybe it is time for the US state to start working for the money they are getting from US citizens and do something (I am not pro-ban person, more about control and ban on semi-automatic weapon)


That is something I've been wanting to point out too.

Johnston's been arguing that it's "illegal" guns that are the issue, and as they've pointed out, they're in Northern Ireland, and yes, the majority of problems are with "illegal" guns. However, I can't remember who, but I think it was Johnston themselves, also pointed out that the majority of those illegal guns come from the US in the first place. In the US, they don't generally import their guns from elsewhere, not even the "illegal" guns, so the "illegal" guns in NI do start life as legal ones back in the US. Legal guns becoming illegal ones does not just effect the US, the statistics about the provenance of guns being used to kill all over the world, particularly those for Mexico, are extremely telling. "Legal" US guns are being used illegally all over the world, not just in the US.

If you reduce the number of legal guns, you eventually reduce the number of illegal ones, and therefore eventually reduce the number of gun related deaths, and not just in the US.

Another point, just to reinforce those who have already made it.

The anti-gun control (or at least anti far tighter gun control) lobby/people, even here, take issue with us sane people's point that the US has massively, disproportionately high gun death rates compared to any other "Western" country, and that this should be reason enough to introduce further gun control, by pointing out that countries like Guatemala, Mexico, Brazil, Honduras and Colombia have even higher figures, concluding that therefore the US doesn't have a problem.

Ignoring for the moment that a lot that make up those figures for other countries are directly attributable to once legal US guns, but, no disrespect to those countries, what country, let alone a "western" country, let alone supposedly "leader of the western world", let alone supposedly "land of the free", would want to be compared to such countries on virtually any ranking system, let alone one listing gun related deaths?

The US has a problem, no most people don't use guns to kill anyone, or commit gun related crimes (as brought up by ashley313), but guns are purely designed to kill (okay, arguably some are only designed to maim) and there's no genuine justification for most ownership, and they have, compared to any other "western" country, a disproportionately high rate of gun related deaths.

If reducing general ownership has any chance of reducing the number of gun related deaths in the US, and also those elsewhere (which it certainly would eventually, seeing as most massacres are done with legal guns, and most other gun crime is committed with illegal guns which started life as legal ones), then surely all those "responsible" gun owners have a moral imperative to choose the minor inconvenience of not being able to have their guns, so as some others may live? If they do not feel this to be a moral imperative, especially in the light of 20 6-7 year olds being slaughtered, then they can't really be considered "responsible" in the first place, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to have guns anyway.

Of course there are other things that need to be done, such as improving the mental health system, but allowing gun ownership to continue largely unchecked is idiotic. Unfortunately, is seems like Obama will only be able to bring back into force Clinton's ban of semi and fully automatic rifles and bigger clips.

For people's interest here's the 2nd amendment (yes it is just from Wikipedia):

"As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Two slightly different versions, but it was just intended to enable the people to be able to form militias and overthrow the government. Hardly relevant now, the US military, and yes national guard, are far too powerful for the people to be able to overthrow them by force. And apparently it was only 4 and 2 years ago respectively that the courts ratified its meaning to anything broader. And anyway, it's only an "amendment", re-amend it.

_________________
"you can never be too paranoid"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Posts: 409
Johnston wrote:
That UK stat may be skewed though. I remember having this discussion on another forum on another occasion someone went fruit loopy. The UK stats were pulled out. How ever when I looked deeper the UK stat given for some reason it was a little off. Can't mind the exact reason but it either didn't include NI despite being UK or didn't include the old paramilitary stuff. Something tells me it was the latter. But either way it was sorta fudged.

I dunno about most illegal guns once being legal. Remember the likes of ghaddafi were selling people guns. So yes at one time they may have been legal but not in the country used at least.

Even if it isn't counting the paramilitary "stuff", the number of people killed by guns in 2011 in the UK wouldn't have increased by a statistically significant amount, especially when comparing to the US. I know there's far more still going on than most in the rest of the UK are aware of, because it doesn't get reported, but there's very few being killed.

Oh, and Gaddafi wasn't selling guns to psychos going of on killing sprees, or your local crack dealer. He was selling to what we in the west consider terrorist organisations, those fighting western backed governments across Africa and the Middle East, although he was friendly with the IRA. He's hardly to blame for America's woes, nor the general guns of the street anywhere in Europe. Mexico's drug lords definitely get their guns smuggled in from the US, guns that are initially bought entirely legally, purely to then be taken south.

_________________
"you can never be too paranoid"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/reco ... HsLIziac4L

When citizens of Camden think they don't need guns to protect themselves, no one does. That place is awful.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
toilet wrote:
Even if it isn't counting the paramilitary "stuff", the number of people killed by guns in 2011 in the UK wouldn't have increased by a statistically significant amount, especially when comparing to the US. I know there's far more still going on than most in the rest of the UK are aware of, because it doesn't get reported, but there's very few being killed.

Oh, and Gaddafi wasn't selling guns to psychos going of on killing sprees, or your local crack dealer. He was selling to what we in the west consider terrorist organisations, those fighting western backed governments across Africa and the Middle East, although he was friendly with the IRA. He's hardly to blame for America's woes, nor the general guns of the street anywhere in Europe. Mexico's drug lords definitely get their guns smuggled in from the US, guns that are initially bought entirely legally, purely to then be taken south.
#

Ha Ha Ha Ha what do you think their side line is ;) IMO the terrorism is just a front. They are nothing more than what would be classed as gangsters anywhere else, involved in fake money, drugs prostitution and many other things your every day gangster is involved in.


I wasn't blaming Ghaddaffi for Americas woes, just pointing out their are people willing to sell guns to other folk. Be it terrorists, gangsters or whatever. Those guys then sell it on or use it themselves. I dunno if I said about reading the other day about two well known gangsters getting caught sending stuff this way. If they are selling stuff to here how can you say they wouldn't sell it to some pimp who sells it on etc etc.



As for not increasing it a statistically significant amount. I wouldn't bet on it. Not every punishment beating or killing gets on the news even here so I would doubt it would get on the news on the mainland.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1309
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
First of all, looking at murders is different than looking at gun related crime. Or do you only care about people murdered? Cause I care about the accidental deaths, the gun injuries, the armed robberies, armed rape, etc.



READ:
NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED BY FIREARMS IN 2010



1. Brazil - 34,678

2. Colombia - 12,539

3. Mexico - 11,309

4. Venezuela - 11,115

5. United States - 9,146



OOH MY BAD! There are 4 other countries worse off than USA, turns out gun control isn't needed after all. I mean what's 9146 deaths at the end of the day? Thanks for enlightening me.

_________________
Lewis Hamilton Fan's Mood Race by Race: :( 8) 8) 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Quote:
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths last year.

Since NHTSA began recording alcohol-related statistics in 1982, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 52% from 21,113 in 1982. Since the inception of The Century Council and our national efforts to fight drunk driving, drunk driving fatalities have declined 35% from 15,827 in 1991. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2011)
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics

So

9146 people die in shootings.

32885 in car crashes
including
10228 from drunk driving

FBI estimates 200 million guns in the US.

and from what google throws up 246 million cars in '09 (Figure dropped 4 mill from 08) .

1.4 million arrested for driving under the influence of drink or drugs

By my quick maths that says cars are more dangerous than guns and that people driving under the influence is a far bigger problem that needs tackled.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1358
Drinking and driving is being tackled. it's against the law and people get caught. The fact that it may cause more deaths than guns does not mean tighter laws on guns should not be brought in.

Otherwise we might as well just have a law for the most dangerous thing in the world and nothing else.........

And why are people bothering to compare gun crime in the US to other countries?

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
My point is that driving under the influence is a bigger killer yet pro-guns are the villains.

52 million gun owning households and 9146 deaths Vs 1.4 million under the influence and 10228 deaths.

Another stat from the CDC website

Quote:
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1

443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men
173,940 deaths annually among women


so again Ciggies are a much bigger killer than guns.

I wonder how many anti gun campaigners smoke?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Posts: 409
Johnston wrote:
toilet wrote:
stuff
#
Ha Ha Ha Ha what do you think their side line is ;) IMO the terrorism is just a front. They are nothing more than what would be classed as gangsters anywhere else, involved in fake money, drugs prostitution and many other things your every day gangster is involved in.

I wasn't blaming Ghaddaffi for Americas woes, just pointing out their are people willing to sell guns to other folk. Be it terrorists, gangsters or whatever. Those guys then sell it on or use it themselves. I dunno if I said about reading the other day about two well known gangsters getting caught sending stuff this way. If they are selling stuff to here how can you say they wouldn't sell it to some pimp who sells it on etc etc.

As for not increasing it a statistically significant amount. I wouldn't bet on it. Not every punishment beating or killing gets on the news even here so I would doubt it would get on the news on the mainland.


Erm, still, then, there was no point bringing up Gadaffi, like I pointed out, people such as him do not, or rather did not, sell to such people. "some pimp" is far too small, insignificant.

If you're suggesting the IRA, were, and their replacement s are involved in running drugs and prostitutes, you probably don't know too much about them.

I know not all their "reprisals" etc, get reported, I stated that, but even if they were killing hundreds, let alone thousands, there would be no hiding it.

_________________
"you can never be too paranoid"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Posts: 409
Johnston wrote:
Quote:
...yes, yes, driveing deaths, drunk driving etc...

By my quick maths that says cars are more dangerous than guns and that people driving under the influence is a far bigger problem that needs tackled.


Yes driving is dangerous, and personally I think fewer people should be allowed to drive. But road safety's something governments are constantly, actively striving towards, instituting new laws to try to address the issue, drunk driving is illegal, yadda, yadda, yadda.

There is no parallel, cars are vital, without them our societies would crumble, their primary function is to convey people and goods to and from various destinations, and everything that can reasonably be done to rectify the down sides is being done; while guns' primary purpose is to kill or maim, no they're not always used for that, but surely all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that they are not used for that.

_________________
"you can never be too paranoid"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 2680
toilet wrote:
If you're suggesting the IRA, were, and their replacement s are involved in running drugs prostitutes, you probably don't know too much about them.

According to Howard Marks, that's exactly how he got drugs into England from Afghanistan! Smuggled into Ireland with IRA weapon shipments.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Society and the economy would suffer without cars...how many people in America would suffer without assault weapons?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
toilet wrote:

Erm, still, then, there was no point bringing up Gadaffi, like I pointed out, people such as him do not, or rather did not, sell to such people. "some pimp" is far too small, insignificant.

If you're suggesting the IRA, were, and their replacement s are involved in running drugs and prostitutes, you probably don't know too much about them.

I know not all their "reprisals" etc, get reported, I stated that, but even if they were killing hundreds, let alone thousands, there would be no hiding it.




Yes they are and you forget it's not just the IRA over here.

Not the 'ra but Paramilitary.

Quote:
They have made money from an array of illegal activities such as drug-dealing, prostitution, extortion and loan-sharking.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/the-untouchable-informers-facing-exposure-at-last-13401237.html
IRA
http://www.zimbio.com/Irish+Republican+ ... ostitution

Quote:
Deputy Collins said that had the plot to kill the soldier not been foiled by detectives it could have caused “extreme reputational damage to Limerick and the mid-west” in terms of inward investment and tourism at a time when gardai were winning the battle against organised crime in the city. The so-called republican groupings, he said, had “no political ideology” to speak of and rarely looked beyond their next crime, which he said included pimping, prostitution, fuel laundering and piracy.
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local/garda-operation-ongoing-after-dissident-plot-to-kill-soldier-in-limerick-1-4600313


Also it's not a case of hiding it but simply not making their way into papers. Many a time did something happen local to me that never hit the media (At one time I lived near the local quarry they liked to use) police used to wrap on the Mrs door every weenend as she had waste land out her back in the middle of the estate. .

One Pimp is probably insignificant. But if one lot of gangsters supply their own and others that one pimp quickly becomes a lot.

A lot of guns made their way here from the states. Somehow I don't think these guys sold their whole stock to Irish shores. If they only sold a percentage to here then that means a percentage stayed home. I only used ghadaffi as a name of someone willing to trade arms with people. Mainly as he's the only name I remembered off the top of my head. If he was willing to supply the Irish do you not think their would be people willing to supply gangsters in America to put illegal guns on the street?

As for the cars there is a parallel . Lots of people have them and lots of people die because of irresponsible users. As for being necessary. Well a car is a more modern invention than the gun. I believe the right to bear arms is in the American constitution however there is no right to drive cars ;)


@ ashley. I was actually going to have a nosey later to see if I could find out how much Arms makes the economy in the states. I was thinking like cigarettes over here it would be one reason they wouldn't be banned. The treasury makes too much. Unless you want to beat me to it ;)

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Posts: 409
Johnston wrote:
My point is that driving under the influence is a bigger killer yet pro-guns are the villains.
52 million gun owning households and 9146 deaths Vs 1.4 million under the influence and 10228 deaths.

You miss the point, if someone was pro-drink driving, they would be the villains too, in fact drink driving is one of the greatest social taboos. So not only is the government doing everything it can to prevent it, but the majority of members of society are also advocating stamping out drink driving. No one's pro-drink driving.


Johnston wrote:
Another stat from the CDC website
Quote:
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1
443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men
173,940 deaths annually among women

so again Ciggies are a much bigger killer than guns.
I wonder how many anti gun campaigners smoke?


Which is why smoking in public places is being criminalised across most of the western world. Smokers are generally seen as social outcasts now. So again, both governmental, legal constraints to prevent smoking related deaths, but also social pressures too. Not to mention that while technically it is possible to kill someone with second hand smoking, to actually kill someone, let alone many people, by your smoking you'd have to be some sort of miracle worker. Try raping someone with just a fag as your "weapon", then try doing it with a gun in your hand instead, you'll likely find you get a rather different outcome.

We, most western societies, are actively doing all they/we can to limit people's ability to murder each other, surely having tighter restrictions on those who can and cannot have access to something designed so effectively to kill or maim is only an entirely logical, reasonable, step to take.

_________________
"you can never be too paranoid"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Posts: 409
minchy wrote:
toilet wrote:
If you're suggesting the IRA, were, and their replacement s are involved in running drugs prostitutes, you probably don't know too much about them.

According to Howard Marks, that's exactly how he got drugs into England from Afghanistan! Smuggled into Ireland with IRA weapon shipments.

Fair enough.

_________________
"you can never be too paranoid"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1358
Johnston, you make some interesting.points but also some rather silly comparisons.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.124s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]