US gun related murder rates compared to other countries

[KevinNYC]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

[Rameek]

Another good reason I am going back to the country with the lowest in the world...:applause:

[SourPatchKids]

Iceland is probably the nicest place to live in the universe.

[LamarOdom]

lol the organization of economic and development, excluding Mexico

So many countries also left out.

:rolleyes:


Iceland is probably the nicest place to live in the universe.

lol

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/tm/2008/03/ReykjavikMoS20308_428x269_to_468x312.jpg

but would be fun hanging with Theoo.

[Nanners]

why didnt they include mexico or russia in that graph?

[bmulls]

why didnt they include mexico or russia in that graph?

cuz it doesn't fit their agenda

[LamarOdom]

why didnt they include mexico or russia in that graph?
the organization of economic and development, excluding Mexico

Obvious agenda.

[TheFan]

why didnt they include mexico or russia in that graph?


I did not include Mexico, which has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war.

no... it is not made up... click on the link and read the article.

[Chapallaz]

Bu Bu But But Mexico!

[boozehound]

the organization of economic and development, excluding Mexico

Obvious agenda.
are you really that daft? Do you not understand the correlation between their position as our illegal transit corridor and the violence there? Its artificially skewed by the public policy of another country.

[Math2]

are you really that daft? Do you not understand the correlation between their position as our illegal transit corridor and the violence there? Its artificially skewed by the public policy of another country.


But what about here, does the gang wars in Chicago not skew things? How is that any different than excluding Mexico, which admittedly has it's drug wars on a much higher scale than our gang wars.

[LamarOdom]

are you really that daft? Do you not understand the correlation between their position as our illegal transit corridor and the violence there? Its artificially skewed by the public policy of another country.


But what about here, does the gang wars in Chicago not skew things? How is that any different than excluding Mexico, which admittedly has it's drug wars on a much higher scale than our gang wars.

Retard gangwars exist in US, I would guess that at least 50% of all homicides are gangrelated

:applause:

[ripthekik]

even putting in Mexico, U.S. still looks bad as one of the few modern developed countries there..

and even with Mexico there.. I think anyone here who is an adult or with some intelligence will not give a worth to Mexico.. drug cartels, crime, poverty, etc.

[bmulls]

even putting in Mexico, U.S. still looks bad as one of the few modern developed countries there..

and even with Mexico there.. I think anyone here who is an adult or with some intelligence will not give a worth to Mexico.. drug cartels, crime, poverty, etc.

If you subtract gang crime related murders the US is right in the middle of the pack.

[Graviton]

even putting in Mexico, U.S. still looks bad as one of the few modern developed countries there..

and even with Mexico there.. I think anyone here who is an adult or with some intelligence will not give a worth to Mexico.. drug cartels, crime, poverty, etc.

We have same things here, gangs, crime, poverty. US is the worst in a lot of things as a developed nation. Our whole economic system and careless culture breeds violence.

[KevinNYC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_Economic_Co-operation_and_Development

[QUOTE]The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, French: Organisation de coop

[KevinNYC]

why didnt they include mexico or russia in that graph?

Russia is not part of the OECD. If you read the article, you would find this

The above chart measures data for the nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which includes all Western countries plus Turkey, Israel, Chile, Japan, and South Korea. I did not include Mexico, which has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war.

Russia works with the OECD and may be taking steps to join it, but it's not a member.

[longhornfan1234]

The murder rate in the US is way down. The big decline started in 1994 and continues. Seems to me that this correlates to the rise in popularity of assault rifles. Assault rifles sales got a huge boost from the Clinton assault weapons ban. Of course it was not really a ban, as there was many loopholes, and actually led to a huge increase in sales.

Link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#nat1970

I am not saying the two are related, but it is very interesting that at the same time assault rifles are increasing in popularity the murder rate is declining dramatically.

I think you could form a hypothesis that the rise in popularity of assault rifles has not impacted the murder rate.

[MMM]

If you subtract gang crime related murders the US is right in the middle of the pack.

and if you subtracted gang related murders in other countries, where would america rank then????

[bmulls]

and if you subtracted gang related murders in other countries, where would america rank then????

Don't know, but gang activity in the United States is off the charts compared to European countries

[MMM]

Don't know, but gang activity in the United States is off the charts compared to European countries

Yes but you can't just claim something without having the numbers to back you up.

[bmulls]

Yes but you can't just claim something without having the numbers to back you up.

It would take me half an hour to find all those stats just so I could post it on ISH and get negged for my opinion anyway :lol

The point is gang related violence skews the numbers greatly and this chart is biased and clearly agenda driven.

[Graviton]

Yes but you can't just claim something without having the numbers to back you up.
You can make a logical assumption based on some facts. Hell, here in the Bay there seems to be a gang related shooting every other week, especially around Oakland.

[nathanjizzle]

It would take me half an hour to find all those stats just so I could post it on ISH and get negged for my opinion anyway :lol

The point is gang related violence skews the numbers greatly and this chart is biased and clearly agenda driven.

gang related violence isnt a problem in our society? lets say 2 gangsters were shooting at eachother in front of your house. would you not have a problem with that?:roll:

[miller-time]

The murder rate in the US is way down. The big decline started in 1994 and continues. Seems to me that this correlates to the rise in popularity of assault rifles. Assault rifles sales got a huge boost from the Clinton assault weapons ban. Of course it was not really a ban, as there was many loopholes, and actually led to a huge increase in sales.

It also correlates with Wade v. Roe.

[longhornfan1234]

It also correlates with Wade v. Roe.
Source?

[bmulls]

gang related violence isnt a problem in our society? lets say 2 gangsters were shooting at eachother in front of your house. would you not have a problem with that?:roll:

You are seriously retarded dude. Stop responding to my posts or learn reading comprehension. Google the words if you don't understand them.

[MMM]

You can make a logical assumption based on some facts. Hell, here in the Bay there seems to be a gang related shooting every other week, especially around Oakland.

Ok, and I would make a logical assumption that gang related murders happen in other countries and make up the majority of their murder rates. In Canada for example if you took out gang related crime such as biker gangs, toronto gangs, and quebec mafia then the murder rate would almost be non existent. How many other countries could you make a similar claim.

[KevinNYC]

I am not saying the two are related, but it is very interesting that at the same time assault rifles are increasing in popularity the murder rate is declining dramatically.

I think you could form a hypothesis that the rise in popularity of assault rifles has not impacted the murder rate.

I don't think that last sentence was what you mean to say.

Yes, you could form a hypothesis, but it might be a terrible hypothesis. You would get much better luck looking at the demographics of America and how the baby boomers were reaching middle age. You could also look what was happening with street crime with the ending of the first era of crack and you could look at criminal sentencing and how it has changed in the last 20 years. All of those would probably have more of an impact that any of our guns laws.

By the way, you have put your thumb on a classic logical fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

[KevinNYC]

Source?

The book Freakonomics.

Basically the question was, in NYC the crime rate dropped quickly and the Giuliani team claim it was due to their methods. However, shortly after that it became dropping in cities all over the country, lots of which didn't use the same methods. So what caused it? They concluded you could make a case for less unwanted pregnancies coming to term. I think they said in cities with access to legal abortion early on, the crime rate fell first.

I'm sure there's a ton of stuff on this, if you google it.

[nathanjizzle]

You are seriously retarded dude. Stop responding to my posts or learn reading comprehension. Google the words if you don't understand them.

"If you subtract gang crime related murders the US is right in the middle of the pack."

what was the point of that statement. your saying gangcrime isnt a factor in our society, too discount it in statistics. your the one that needs more comprehension and less hunting wtih your guns.

[bmulls]

"If you subtract gang crime related murders the US is right in the middle of the pack."

what was the point of that statement. your saying gangcrime isnt a factor in our society, too discount it in statistics. your the one that needs more comprehension and less hunting wtih your guns.

I'm saying gang crimes are a huge factor in our society, the single largest factor. If you get rid of gang murders then the US murder rate is close to the rest of the developed world.

You're saying the same thing I'm saying.

[MMM]

I'm saying gang crimes are a huge factor in our society, the single largest factor. If you get rid of gang murders then the US murder rate is close to the rest of the developed world.

You're saying the same thing I'm saying.

Gang crimes are a huge factor in the numbers for all the countries whether it is from the mob, cartel, gangs, etc

[ripthekik]

I'm saying gang crimes are a huge factor in our society, the single largest factor. If you get rid of gang murders then the US murder rate is close to the rest of the developed world.

You're saying the same thing I'm saying.
but wtf? How the hell can you just get rid of gang crimes out of the murder rate? It's PART of the murder rate. How would it be fair to take out gang crimes out of the murder rate THEN compare it with other countries?

If I take other countries, and take out their #1 reason for murder crimes, I'd lower the rate too. So what's the point? The U.S. murder rate is high, including gang crimes, that's all there is to it.

You compare the overall murder rate, not anything else. Other countries murder rate include their own gang crimes too.

Seriously, you provide the WORST arguments.
"People shoudn't drive because cars cause death as well"
"people shouldn't drink because alcohol cause death as well"
"if we take away guns, people will kill with knifes, and the death rate will be the same"
"we should take out gang crimes, then U.S. will be comparable to other countries with their full murder rates"

wtf??
You argue like a middle school kid, seriously.

[bmulls]

but wtf? How the hell can you just get rid of gang crimes out of the murder rate? It's PART of the murder rate. How would it be fair to take out gang crimes out of the murder rate THEN compare it with other countries?

If I take other countries, and take out their #1 reason for murder crimes, I'd lower the rate too. So what's the point? The U.S. murder rate is high, including gang crimes, that's all there is to it.

You compare the overall murder rate, not anything else. Other countries murder rate include their own gang crimes too.

I'm saying 2 things:

1. The US faces a gang epidemic on a scale that other developed nations can't even fathom. If you're going to leave Mexico off your chart because of it's drug war you also need to take America's gang problem into consideration.

2. Addressing gang violence would do a lot more to prevent gun murder than gun control would because the majority of gang murders are committed with stolen or illegal firearms anyway.

[MMM]

I'm saying 2 things:

1. The US faces a gang epidemic on a scale that other developed nations can't even fathom. If you're going to leave Mexico off your chart because of it's drug war you also need to take America's gang problem into consideration.

2. Addressing gang violence would do a lot more to prevent gun murder than gun control would because the majority of gang murders are committed with stolen or illegal firearms anyway.

It could be argued that Mexico's problems are because of America's war on drugs, I don't think the same can be said about America's problems.

[ripthekik]

I'm saying 2 things:

1. The US faces a gang epidemic on a scale that other developed nations can't even fathom. If you're going to leave Mexico off your chart because of it's drug war you also need to take America's gang problem into consideration.

2. Addressing gang violence would do a lot more to prevent gun murder than gun control would because the majority of gang murders are committed with stolen or illegal firearms anyway.
U.S. gang crimes can't even touch Mexico or the countries in Africa. They got 14 year old with guns.

And I've already said, even if you put Mexico there, the U.S. still looks bad. What's left to say then? USA MURDER RATE IS BAD, face it.

[miller-time]

Source?

Source for a correlation? Well it'd be an inverse correlation since it would be as the number of abortions taking place goes up the amount of violent crime goes down.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Violent_crime_rates_1973-2005.jpg

It was decided in 1973, and since people who would have been entering their late teens and early 20s around that 93 94 period (the demographic most likely to commit those sorts of crime - by age and socioeconomic level) were less in number, this effectively lowered the overall crime rate (if the relationship is causal, I'm not saying it is - it is only a correlation after all).

[bmulls]

U.S. gang crimes can't even touch Mexico or the countries in Africa. They got 14 year old with guns.

And I've already said, even if you put Mexico there, the U.S. still looks bad. What's left to say then? USA MURDER RATE IS BAD, face it.

I agree it's bad, and I've never said otherwise. We need to get tougher on gang crime and reevaluate the drug laws that fuel it.

[raiderfan19]

Source for a correlation? Well it'd be an inverse correlation since it would be as the number of abortions taking place goes up the amount of violent crime goes down.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Violent_crime_rates_1973-2005.jpg

It was decided in 1973, and since people who would have been entering their late teens and early 20s around that 93 94 period (the demographic most likely to commit those sorts of crime - by age and socioeconomic level) were less in number, this effectively lowered the overall crime rate (if the relationship is causal, I'm not saying it is - it is only a correlation after all).
Depending on your opinion you could argue thats simply a matter of accounting. I wouldn't agree with that argument but playing devils advocate you could argue that abortion is in and of itself a violent crime and as such the rates didn't really change.

My actual question would be what is the actual violent crime and or murder rate compared to these other countries and honestly I don't know the answer to that. If the knife and simple physical violent crime rates are much higher in the other countries then this stat doesn't matter

[Patrick Chewing]

Thread and graph is a joke without mentioning Mexico.

[miller-time]

Thread and graph is a joke without mentioning Mexico.

It isn't like they are hiding the fact, they mention they didn't include it. "I did not include Mexico, which has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war."
Also the fact that Mexico is worse than the US doesn't make the US any better.

[bmulls]

It isn't like they are hiding the fact, they mention they didn't include it. "I did not include Mexico, which has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war."
Also the fact that Mexico is worse than the US doesn't make the US any better.

It's just indicative of the entire argument. If you can't trust either side to present the unadulterated facts then we are never going to find a compromise. We need discussions in good faith, not agenda driven propaganda.

[RaininThrees]

America kinda sucks besides basketball

And that was created by a Canadian.

[daily]

It doesn't matter if they included Mexico in the graph or Antarctica even. The discussion is how to lower gun related deaths in the USA. Not bring it down to an acceptable level compared to other parts of the world. Only numbers that apply are the ones from the USA.

Saying ooooo look we're not as bad as XYZ is a copout

[RaininThrees]

why didnt they include mexico or russia in that graph?

"Yeah! Look at us! We're slightly better than Mexico!"

Real high bar you've set for yourselves there, guys.

[miller-time]

It's just indicative of the entire argument. If you can't trust either side to present the unadulterated facts then we are never going to find a compromise. We need discussions in good faith, not agenda driven propaganda.

What are you talking about. They weren't hiding anything. How exactly is including Mexico, a country rampant with drug related violence going to have any impact on Americas standing to the rest of the world? Yes Mexico is worse, but the author isn't trying to hide that fact. So how is something propaganda when all parts are accounted for (left out or not)?

[boozehound]

But what about here, does the gang wars in Chicago not skew things? How is that any different than excluding Mexico, which admittedly has it's drug wars on a much higher scale than our gang wars.
uhm, again, I see your reading comprehension is not the best. How are gang wars impacted by another nation-states policy? The violence in mexico is an outgrowth and reflection of US violence.

[ZenMaster]

Do anybody know how many of the gun related crimes have alcohol involved?

[boozehound]

if anything, the high rate in mexico reinforces the importance of gun control. where did 90% of all the confiscated guns in MX come from? They were legally purchased in the US. The US gun laws have a direct impact on the presence and use of guns in mexico. That is a fact. Even the repubs have indirectly acknowledged this with their pursuit of too fast too furious.

[Segatti]

It's all Detroit's fault.

[miller-time]

The US is rampant with drug related violence too lol. You cant excuse mexico for it and than ignore the fact that a huge % of crimes in the US are commited by drug addicts.

The key difference being the terms "drug related crime or violence" and "drug war." In Mexico large amounts of violence and murder are being committed by a relatively small number of people. Where as in the US there is more variation and larger numbers in the people committing these crimes.

[red1]

And that was created by a Canadian.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcpyusZ2mP1qk7867o1_500.gif

[boozehound]

The US is rampant with drug related violence too lol. You cant excuse mexico for it and than ignore the fact that a huge % of crimes in the US are commited by drug addicts.
the difference being that, in mexico, its not about drug users, its about drug shipments. The massive drug use in the US is what causes the drug-related violence in mexico,

[KevinNYC]

Thread and graph is a joke without mentioning Mexico.

So as long as we don't reach the rates of the country where the government and several cartels are fighting it out over control of the drug trade we're doing fine?

[D-Rose]

Found an opinion piece from the Syndey Morning Herald by Australia's former Prime Minister from 1996-2007, John Howard.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html


EARLY in 2008 Janette and I were guests of the former president, George H. W. Bush or ''41'', as he is affectionately known, at his Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. I spoke to a warm and friendly audience of more than 300 who enthusiastically reacted until, in answer to a request to nominate the proudest actions of the Australian government I had led for almost 12 years, I included the national gun control laws enacted after the Port Arthur massacre in April 1996.

Having applauded my references to the liberation of East Timor, leaving Australia debt free, presiding over a large reduction in unemployment and standing beside the US in the global fight against terrorism, there was an audible gasp of amazement at my expressing pride in what Australia had done to limit the use of guns.

I had been given a sharp reminder that, despite the many things we have in common with our American friends, there is a huge cultural divide when it comes to the free availability of firearms.

Just under two weeks ago, my wife and I were in Dallas, Texas, when the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, took place. The responses of President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, his presumed Republican opponent, were as predictable as they were disappointing. While expressing sorrow at such a loss of life, both quickly said that they supported the Second Amendment to the US constitution: long regarded as providing an extensive right for Americans to bear arms.

The Second Amendment, crafted in the immediate post-revolutionary years, is more than 200 years old and was designed to protect the right of local communities to raise and maintain militia for use against external threats (including the newly formed national government!). It bears no relationship at all to the circumstances of everyday life in America today. Yet there is a near religious fervour about protecting the right of Americans to have their guns - and plenty of them.

In this respect it is worth noting that the local police claim that James Holmes, the man now formally charged over the Aurora shootings, had in his possession an AR15 assault rifle (similar to one used by Martin Bryant at Port Arthur), a shotgun and two Glock handguns and 6000 rounds of ammunition. All had been legally obtained.

Obama and Romney are both highly intelligent, decent men who care deeply about the safety of Americans. Yet such is the strength of the pro-gun culture in their country that neither felt able to use the Aurora tragedy as a reason to start a serious debate on gun control.

There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.

The murder rate in the US is roughly four times that in each of Australia, New Zealand, and Britain. Even the most diehard supporter of guns must concede that America's lax firearms laws are a major part of the explanation for such a disparity.

On April 28, 1996, Bryant, using two weapons, killed 35 people in Tasmania. It was, at that time, the largest number of people who had died in a single series of incidents at the hands of one person.

The national gun control laws delivered by the Howard government, following this tragedy received bipartisan support. They, nonetheless, caused internal difficulties for some of my then National Party colleagues. Tim Fischer and John Anderson, then leader and deputy leader of the National Party federally, as well as Rob Borbidge, then National Party premier of Queensland, courageously faced down opponents in their own ranks to support a measure they knew to be in the national interest. Many believed, in the months that followed, that hostility towards these gun laws played a role in the emergence of Pauline Hanson's One Nation cause.

These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws.

A key component of the 1996 measure, which banned the sale, importation and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, was a national buy-back scheme involving the compulsory forfeiture of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 700,000 guns were removed and destroyed. This was one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms. The equivalent in the US would have been 40 million guns. Australia's action remains one of the largest destructions of civilian firearms.

Australia is a safer country as a result of what was done in 1996. It will be the continuing responsibility of current and future federal and state governments to ensure the effectiveness of those anti-gun laws is never weakened. The US is a country for which I have much affection. There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit. But when it comes to guns we have been right to take a radically different path.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html#ixzz2FHUnSOJI

[Graviton]

While he made lot of sense, this part troubled me...

"A key component of the 1996 measure, which banned the sale, importation and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, was a national buy-back scheme involving the compulsory forfeiture of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 700,000 guns were removed and destroyed. This was one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms. The equivalent in the US would have been 40 million guns. Australia's action remains one of the largest destructions of civilian firearms."

Why would you ban possession of ALL rifles/shotguns and to top it off destroy so many firearms instead of saving it in a government facility? Sounds like Australia is defenseless against outside dangers. Their laws seem to mostly be at the extreme end of the spectrum. Anyone remember their video game measures? They seem like a paranoid bunch, great that they feel safe from the inside, but they are giving up lot of rights for that security.

[D-Rose]

^Something like that would be impossible and impractical in America because we have far too many of them already. Any law passed wouldn't be retroactive on guns already owned.

[Borat]

While he made lot of sense, this part troubled me...

"A key component of the 1996 measure, which banned the sale, importation and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, was a national buy-back scheme involving the compulsory forfeiture of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 700,000 guns were removed and destroyed. This was one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms. The equivalent in the US would have been 40 million guns. Australia's action remains one of the largest destructions of civilian firearms."

Why would you ban possession of ALL rifles/shotguns and to top it off destroy so many firearms instead of saving it in a government facility? Sounds like Australia is defenseless against outside dangers. Their laws seem to mostly be at the extreme end of the spectrum. Anyone remember their video game measures? They seem like a paranoid bunch, great that they feel safe from the inside, but they are giving up lot of rights for that security.

You honestly have no idea what you are talking about

[miller-time]

Why would you ban possession of ALL rifles/shotguns and to top it off destroy so many firearms instead of saving it in a government facility? Sounds like Australia is defenseless against outside dangers. Their laws seem to mostly be at the extreme end of the spectrum. Anyone remember their video game measures? They seem like a paranoid bunch, great that they feel safe from the inside, but they are giving up lot of rights for that security.

We have a military and an army reserve. They are what protect us against outside threats. We aren't defenceless.

[Borat]

you can have a shot gun in australia btw.
I am currently a resident of that country and own one legally, contrary to that article.

[Graviton]

You honestly have no idea what you are talking about
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, Borat.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/130831979143.jpg

[Borat]

We have a military and an army reserve. They are what protect us against outside threats. We aren't defenceless.

and I'd back the australian SAS against ANY other special forces team in the world.
And I'm not alone in that

[Borat]

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, Borat.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/130831979143.jpg


its all the post deserved

[Graviton]

We have a military and an army reserve. They are what protect us against outside threats. We aren't defenceless.
How many? How well trained and equipped? If that force falls, what are the citizens gonna do?

Isn't there a big hunting culture in Australia? Some must have sniper rifles.

[D-Rose]

How many? How well trained and equipped? If that force falls, what are the citizens gonna do?

Isn't there a big hunting culture in Australia? Some must have sniper rifles.
So you mean to tell me, that if a country like the USA's military collapsed trying to protect its borders from foreigners...their civilians and their guns could do anything?

Ever heard of bombs, airplanes, tanks, nukes, grenades, trained military professionals?

This is something that applied in 1776, not anymore though.

[Graviton]

you can have a shot gun in australia btw.
I am currently a resident of that country and own one legally, contrary to that article.
What about handguns?

[Graviton]

So you mean to tell me, that if a country like the USA's military collapsed trying to protect its borders from foreigners...their civilians and their guns could do anything?

Ever heard of bombs, airplanes, tanks, nukes, grenades, trained military professionals?

This is something that applied in 1776, not anymore though.
Not America, but Australia. They don't have our equipment. They could use our laws more than us lol, a big island with no border connection with any other nation and a small population with only even smaller armed personnel?

If WW3 happened, they would be an easy target.

[D-Rose]

Not America, but Australia. They don't have our equipment. They could use our laws more than us lol, a big island with no border connection with any other nation and a small population with only even smaller armed personnel?

If WW3 happened, they would be an easy target.
Are you serious right now?

Australia has a strong navy, air force, and army. They have many allies around the world that would obviously back them up if someone even began to deny their sovereignty and engage their military in combat.

I mean, if you think that a country could take down their entire military, why the hell do you think armed civilians are going to be able to defend themselves against the same force? :wtf:

[ripthekik]

Not America, but Australia. They don't have our equipment. They could use our laws more than us lol, a big island with no border connection with any other nation and a small population with only even smaller armed personnel?

If WW3 happened, they would be an easy target.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
wtf...
as if civilians owning arms will do a thing. delusional gun enthusiast thinks his gun will help him defend himself if the government army comes or another nation attacks him with a bomb

I'd like to see what help your gun brings when a swat team comes busting down your door

[miller-time]

How many? How well trained and equipped? If that force falls, what are the citizens gonna do?

Isn't there a big hunting culture in Australia? Some must have sniper rifles.

If the force falls we would do what every other country would we would all be wiped out. You are living in a delusion if you think handguns and shotguns can stop an invading force that already wiped out your standing and reserve armies. There is a reason insurgents have their hands on RPGs and heavy weapons (which are also illegal to US civilians).

Regionally (south-east Asia) our military equipment is good, but it wouldn't be anything compared to places like Britain or China or the US obviously. If another world war happened we would be able to bolster up pretty quickly I'd imagine (technologically and financially) but at the moment we don't really have much threat or need here - we are fairly isolated.

I'm not sure how popular hunting is really, I live in the city. There is a pretty big cultural divide between city life and country life. I'd assume hunting is pretty popular in the country, but a lot of it would be because it is necessary (to keep down numbers of pests and invasive species). But the weapons they have would be 303s and shotguns. Nothing like AR-15s or anything.

[Graviton]

Are you serious right now?

Australia has a strong navy, air force, and army. They have many allies around the world that would obviously back them up if someone even began to deny their sovereignty and engage their military in combat.

I mean, if you think that a country could take down their entire military, why the hell do you think armed civilians are going to be able to defend themselves against the same force? :wtf:
They could deter the invaders if all of them fought together, instead of the small portion. It's not like they will sit back and watch while their military was picked apart. It would be harder to take over the population. Didn't you see Red Dawn man?

[D-Rose]

They could deter the invaders if all of them fought together, instead of the small portion. It's not like they will sit back and watch while their military was picked apart. It would be harder to take over the population. Didn't you see Red Dawn man?
Wow, okay I'm half convinced you're trolling because you're using a hollywood flick as a source. :facepalm

[Graviton]

@Miller-time

Thanks for the informative response, I now know more about Australia.

[ripthekik]

Is it just me or the guys continuing to lobby for guns here on ISH the past 2 days just... to be straightforward, quite.. unintelligent? I mean the counterarguments and the examples seem like they come from middle school kids. I guess it's a true reflection of the situation in U.S. afterall. The gun enthusiasts do think like them, and no matter how much you try to convince them, they'll come back with totally wack and out-of-world counterarguments.

[Graviton]

Wow, okay I'm half convinced you're trolling because you're using a hollywood flick as a source. :facepalm
I use sarcasm often, it's hard to detect at times. Did the "Red Dawn" part shock you lol?

[Graviton]

Is it just me or the guys continuing to lobby for guns here on ISH the past 2 days just... to be straightforward, quite.. unintelligent? I mean the counterarguments and the examples seem like they come from middle school kids. I guess it's a true reflection of the situation in U.S. afterall. The gun enthusiasts do think like them, and no matter how much you try to convince them, they'll come back with totally wack and out-of-world counterarguments.
I think it's just you being too extreme and also not detecting sarcasm. Me and bmulls presented rational solutions and supported tighter restrictions. Some others are just emotional and want unrealistic bans.

You shouldn't talk about middle school antics, most of your posts are childish insults about Lebron. You act a lot like a kid with lot of insecurities. Usually the guy who starts throwing out insults and stereotypes is the one with no argument or knowledge. Most of the discussion we had lately was logical, even if heated at times.

[miller-time]

Is it just me or the guys continuing to lobby for guns here on ISH the past 2 days just... to be straightforward, quite.. unintelligent? I mean the counterarguments and the examples seem like they come from middle school kids. I guess it's a true reflection of the situation in U.S. afterall. The gun enthusiasts do think like them, and no matter how much you try to convince them, they'll come back with totally wack and out-of-world counterarguments.

I don't think they are necessarily unintelligent. I just think they are kind of selfish. They are quite literally sticking to their guns. They almost argue in a cyclical fashion. You never get to the end of a point, you always have to shift to a new comparison or statistic.

[ripthekik]

I think it's just you being too extreme and also not detecting sarcasm. Me and bmulls presented rational solutions and supported tighter restrictions. Some others are just emotional and want unrealistic bans.

You shouldn't talk about middle school antics, most of your posts are childish insults about Lebron. You act a lot like a kid with lot of insecurities. Usually the guy who starts throwing out insults and stereotypes is the one with no argument or knowledge. Most of the discussion we had lately was logical, even if heated at times.
Why does NBA posts have to do with this? Completely unrelated.
I have used logic and reasoning to debate this topic, yet you guys come back with completely retarded responses. Your knowledge and logic is lacking, as well as education. Just read your own responses, even a child knows it's not to be taken seriously.

I don't think I even need to say anything more. Read the posts the last 2 days. Everyone has been rational and logical, seems like the one who is calling everyone else emotional might be the one himself. When 95% of ISH are continuously correcting your stupid perspective, you know something's wrong.

[bmulls]

Why does NBA posts have to do with this? Completely unrelated.
I have used logic and reasoning to debate this topic, yet you guys come back with completely retarded responses. Your knowledge and logic is lacking, as well as education. Just read your own responses, even a child knows it's not to be taken seriously.

I don't think I even need to say anything more. Read the posts the last 2 days. Everyone has been rational and logical, seems like the one who is calling everyone else emotional might be the one himself. When 95% of ISH are continuously correcting your stupid perspective, you know something's wrong.

95% of ISH are liberal city kids who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting or target shooting. My opinions are only stupid to you because you disagree with them.

[ripthekik]

Not America, but Australia. They don't have our equipment. They could use our laws more than us lol, a big island with no border connection with any other nation and a small population with only even smaller armed personnel?

If WW3 happened, they would be an easy target.
After this post, do you think any other 'smart' ideas coming out of you should be taken seriously? Someone who thinks civilians owning arms will help when the national army is defeated? I don't think you passed middle school history.

Sorry for the personal attacks, but it's just getting too ridiculous at this point. I applause the other guys that continue to give you guys attention and take you seriously.

[ripthekik]

95% of ISH are liberal city kids who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting or target shooting. My opinions are only stupid to you because you disagree with them.
So... only target shooting or hunting guys are the ones who know how to appreciate guns? Really? Other people's reasoning are flawed because they dont appreciate "hunting" as a hobby?

I'll be honest, I live in a city and have almost no idea about hunting. But using a hobby to defend possession of arms? really? We've come to this point? What positives does hunting bring to the public? How does a nation benefit from hunting, to merit a hobby being one of the reason for owning arms?

[MMM]

95% of ISH are liberal city kids who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting or target shooting. My opinions are only stupid to you because you disagree with them.

I wouldn't consider my self a liberal but in Canada we have an extensive hunting culture but are still able to restrict guns. Restrictions on certain weapons is not going to take hunting, target shooting, or protection away from people who own guns. However, I believe if any changes occur, they will be in place for future gun owners due to grand fathering in regulations.

[Graviton]

Why does NBA posts have to do with this? Completely unrelated.
I have used logic and reasoning to debate this topic, yet you guys come back with completely retarded responses. Your knowledge and logic is lacking, as well as education. Just read your own responses, even a child knows it's not to be taken seriously.

I don't think I even need to say anything more. Read the posts the last 2 days. Everyone has been rational and logical, seems like the one who is calling everyone else emotional might be the one himself. When 95% of ISH are continuously correcting your stupid perspective, you know something's wrong.
Could you give examples of my "retarded" responses? You are the one being emotional and immature. I have said I support restrictions already, I don't know what the **** you presented as a realistic solution.

Again, you are just throwing insults and not even presenting your own argument. You are simply deflecting the points and just spewing nonsense.

[bmulls]

So... only target shooting or hunting guys are the ones who know how to appreciate guns? Really? Other people's reasoning are flawed because they dont appreciate "hunting" as a hobby?

I'll be honest, I live in a city and have almost no idea about hunting. But using a hobby to defend possession of arms? really? We've come to this point? What positives does hunting bring to the public? How does a nation benefit from hunting, to merit a hobby being one of the reason for owning arms?

We've already been through this. How does a nation benefit from alcohol? Does getting drunk merit the deaths of 15,000+ people every year?

You won't even answer that question, you'll :facepalm and call me an idiot and ride your high horse off into the distance.

[ripthekik]

Could you give examples of my "retarded" responses? You are the one being emotional and immature. I have said I support restrictions already, I don't know what the **** you presented as a realistic solution.

Again, you are just throwing insults and not even presenting your own argument. You are simply deflecting the points and just spewing nonsense.
I posted one of your retarded posts up there.

My stance is clear, and I have posted it many times. I know banning guns is impossible in the U.S. at this point. There is no point talking about it. However, they need to start working on gun control now. Start slow, but START. Allowing anyone will go to Walmarts now to buy a gun simply isn't helping the situation.

[Graviton]

After this post, do you think any other 'smart' ideas coming out of you should be taken seriously? Someone who thinks civilians owning arms will help when the national army is defeated? I don't think you passed middle school history.

Sorry for the personal attacks, but it's just getting too ridiculous at this point. I applause the other guys that continue to give you guys attention and take you seriously.

I think it's just you being too extreme and also not detecting sarcasm. Me and bmulls presented rational solutions and supported tighter restrictions. Some others are just emotional and want unrealistic bans.

You shouldn't talk about middle school antics, most of your posts are childish insults about Lebron. You act a lot like a kid with lot of insecurities. Usually the guy who starts throwing out insults and stereotypes is the one with no argument or knowledge. Most of the discussion we had lately was logical, even if heated at times....

[Graviton]

I posted one of your retarded posts up there.

My stance is clear, and I have posted it many times. I know banning guns is impossible in the U.S. at this point. There is no point talking about it. However, they need to start working on gun control now. Start slow, but START. Allowing anyone will go to Walmarts now to buy a gun simply isn't helping the situation.
That was my ****in point too.

Restricting guns so people like bmulls could still get them, but not casual individuals that wouldn't bother if paperwork and licensing was involved. I am sure bmulls supports the same idea.

[ripthekik]

We've already been through this. How does a nation benefit from alcohol? Does getting drunk merit the deaths of 15,000+ people every year?

You won't even answer that question, you'll :facepalm and call me an idiot and ride your high horse off into the distance.
Because that's the dumbest response that doesn't merit an answer. It really is a middle school response.

Comparing alcohol to firearms?

Ok, let's get to the basics. What are the basic functions of alcohol? It's a beverage. It's doesn't cause harm, death, or damage DIRECTLY for a start. It might be part of causes of death rates alright- drunk driving, involuntary manslaughter etc. But you forgot to use your own logic here.. shouldn't we look at RATES?

Every single day MILLIONS of people drink, at this moment now there are millions being drunk. What are the percentages of it leading to death? Probably 0.0000001.

What is the main function of a gun? To cause damage and harm.

Look at all the countries around the world who consumes alcohol. Is there a correlation with death rate? Not really. The rate is so low.. each night millions drink around the world and there is like 5 accidents in a town compared to thousands drunk that night? How could you say the death rate should merit alcohol being banned? More than 99.9999999999% of the time it's usage is safe.

Plus in deaths, alcohol is not a DIRECT cause. Drunk driving, driving is the direct cause. It is indirect, an only a FACTOR.

When guns are used to kill, they are the DIRECT cause of death. Enough?

[bmulls]

Because that's the dumbest response that doesn't merit an answer. It really is a middle school response.

Comparing alcohol to firearms?

Ok, let's get to the basics. What are the basic functions of alcohol? It's a beverage. It's doesn't cause harm, death, or damage DIRECTLY for a start. It might be part of causes of death rates alright- drunk driving, involuntary manslaughter etc. But you forgot to use your own logic here.. shouldn't we look at RATES?

Every single day MILLIONS of people drink, at this moment now there are millions being drunk. What are the percentages of it leading to death? Probably 0.0000001.

What is the main function of a gun? To cause damage and harm.

Look at all the countries around the world who consumes alcohol. Is there a correlation with death rate? Not really. The rate is so low.. each night millions drink around the world and there is like 5 accidents in a town compared to thousands drunk that night? How could you say the death rate should merit alcohol being banned? More than 99.9999999999% of the time it's usage is safe.

Plus in deaths, alcohol is not a DIRECT cause. Drunk driving, driving is the direct cause. It is indirect, an only a FACTOR.

When guns are used to kill, they are the DIRECT cause of death. Enough?

Strong mental gymnastics. A gun is a tool. A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Whether that projectile causes damage and harm is entirely up to the person pulling the trigger. As for the rest of your bullshit, I'll humor you so you can see how wrong you are:

A 2008 gallup poll estimates that 45% of households own at least 1 gun. The US Census reports that there were 112 million households in the US in 2008. Assuming only 1 person in each household owns a firearm (which is obviously not the case, many households will have multiple owners), there were 50.4 million gun owners in the US. The FBI reports approximately 9000 gun murders in the United States in 2008. This means that in 2008 around one tenth of one percent of gun owners used their guns to kill somebody.

So, literally 99.9% of the time gun usage is safe.

Edit: My math was wrong, it's actually 99.999%

At the end of the day a dead body is a dead body, and getting drunk is completely frivolous pursuit that results in the deaths of thousands of innocent people annually. You think the families of drunk driving victims care how "directly" their loved one was killed? No.

Now, I've just bitch slapped the shit out of your argument here using real hard stats backed up with legitimate sources, but you can keep telling me it's a middle school argument if it makes you feel better about your supposed intelligence.


http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/hh-fam/table1n.txt
http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

[ripthekik]

literally 99.9% of the time gun usage is safe."
There is no usage until the gun is fired. Just like alcohol is not used until it is consumed. Otherwise can I use the statistics for millions of tonnes of alcohol sitting around in factories? I think that threw your entire case of "legitimate sources" and statistics out the window.

Just stop :facepalm. I'm not really sure that you're serious in comparing alcohol with firearms either. The intention, function, rate, and direct/indirect cause, usage for other purposes, among with tons of other reasons, are just not the same. Alcohol can be enjoyed over dinner, bars, home, everywhere without causing harm. How much places can you shoot a gun? What is the main function of a gun? I'm sure you can figure it out.

And it's a lost cause trying to argue this. Everything other ISH posters and I have said has been said by thousands others. If it can't change your mind, nothing will. Not to mention changing your mind does nothing for the U.S. as well.

I'll leave with one final comment here. The same psycho in China couldn't get his hands on guns, so he used a knife and caused 0 deaths. That's all I have to say.

[raiderfan19]

if anything, the high rate in mexico reinforces the importance of gun control. where did 90% of all the confiscated guns in MX come from? They were legally purchased in the US. The US gun laws have a direct impact on the presence and use of guns in mexico. That is a fact. Even the repubs have indirectly acknowledged this with their pursuit of too fast too furious.
This isn't true

[bmulls]

There is no usage until the gun is fired. Just like alcohol is not used until it is consumed. Otherwise can I use the statistics for millions of tonnes of alcohol sitting around in factories? I think that threw your entire case of "legitimate sources" and statistics out the window.

Just stop :facepalm. I'm not really sure that you're serious in comparing alcohol with firearms either. The intention, function, rate, and direct/indirect cause, usage for other purposes, among with tons of other reasons, are just not the same. Alcohol can be enjoyed over dinner, bars, home, everywhere without causing harm. How much places can you shoot a gun? What is the main function of a gun? I'm sure you can figure it out.

And it's a lost cause trying to argue this. Everything other ISH posters and I have said has been said by thousands others. If it can't change your mind, nothing will. Not to mention changing your mind does nothing for the U.S. as well.

I'll leave with one final comment here. The same psycho in China couldn't get his hands on guns, so he used a knife and caused 0 deaths. That's all I have to say.

:biggums:

What? Alcohol sitting in factories? The fck are you talking about?

[bmulls]

Somebody please explain what ripthekik is trying to say and how it refutes my point.

[ripthekik]

:biggums:

What? Alcohol sitting in factories? The fck are you talking about?
You used the statistics to show how many families own guns, and how many used them. Many packaged alcohol that are still not sold are sitting there, and or in people's fridge.

So why don't you answer my last question for you:
Guns aren't used until they are fired. What do your statistics tell you now? Everytime they are fired what do you think happens? Do you see the difference between usage of the gun and alcohol now? What happens most of the time when a man opens up a can of beer in his room? Where is the danger?

Would you give your 5 year old boy a gun in a room, or a can of alcohol?

[maybeshewill13]

Iceland is probably the nicest place to live in the universe.

Iceland GOAT country :bowdown:

[MMM]

other countries have lower crime rates, healthier populous, comparably highly skilled and trained populous, and generally a happier populous. So, why is America lagging behind some of these nations in these areas and why is no attempt made to actually learn from said countries.

For example, prior to the economic collapse if America had banking regulations relatively comparable to that of Australia or Canada does the banking melt down occur???

If that could be the case then what about other areas where America lags behind like gun crime or health outcomes.

[miller-time]

You used the statistics to show how many families own guns, and how many used them. Many packaged alcohol that are still not sold are sitting there, and or in people's fridge.

So why don't you answer my last question for you:
Guns aren't used until they are fired. What do your statistics tell you now? Everytime they are fired what do you think happens? Do you see the difference between usage of the gun and alcohol now? What happens most of the time when a man opens up a can of beer in his room? Where is the danger?

Would you give your 5 year old boy a gun in a room, or a can of alcohol?

I might be throwing a spanner in the works for you here, but you could argue that at least some of the time the simple possession or visual of a gun could be considered "use." To use a gun doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be fired.

But overall I think the statistics would still be in your favor.

[bmulls]

You used the statistics to show how many families own guns, and how many used them. Many packaged alcohol that are still not sold are sitting there, and or in people's fridge.

So why don't you answer my last question for you:
Guns aren't used until they are fired. What do your statistics tell you now? Everytime they are fired what do you think happens? Do you see the difference between usage of the gun and alcohol now? What happens most of the time when a man opens up a can of beer in his room? Where is the danger?

Would you give your 5 year old boy a gun in a room, or a can of alcohol?

That has nothing to do with anything I posted and makes absolutely no sense.

Seriously :biggums:

You asked me how a hobby can merit 10,000 deaths every year. I countered that alcohol, another hobby, causes 15,000 deaths every year. You replied that 99.99999% of the time alcohol usage is safe, therefore we should not ban it. I showed you statistically that 99.999% of gun usage is safe.

[bmulls]

I might be throwing a spanner in the works for you here, but you could argue that at least some of the time the simple possession or visual of a gun could be considered "use." To use a gun doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be fired.

But overall I think the statistics would still be in your favor.

:roll:

How are they in his favor?

50.4 million people own guns. 49.6 million of them will not kill anybody with them. Assuming each person uses their gun once per year, the statistics are still 99.999% of the time a gun is fired it is done safely.

Now if we are more realistic and assume on average (some more, some less) each person uses their gun 5-10 times per year, the statistics swing even more wildly in my favor. We're talking 99.999999999999999999% of the time a gun is fired, it is fired safely.

[bmulls]

*Safely in this case means nobody is murdered. If you want to include injuries accidents, then we have to add in injuries caused by alcohol, and that would yet again swing things wildly in my favor.

[ripthekik]

That has nothing to do with anything I posted and makes absolutely no sense.

Seriously :biggums:

You asked me how a hobby can merit 10,000 deaths every year. I countered that alcohol, another hobby, causes 15,000 deaths every year. You replied that 99.99999% of the time alcohol usage is safe, therefore we should not ban it. I showed you statistically that 99.999% of gun usage is safe.
Ok, let's deal with statistics for a moment here. There are only 2 situations, so it'll be easy.

A) based on your statistics on how many home owners own guns, and how many were used per year, you said 99.9999% gun usage were safe.
In this case, the equivalent statistic for alcohol would be: looking at all the alcohol that sits around a home unconsumed (unused), which is nearly 100% in all families, and then comparing it finally to a number of death caused by alcohol. Good luck with that.

B) How about comparing them when they are finally used? Guns fired, alcohol consumed. What is the rate of fatality between them?

That question there, would you place a 5 year old boy in a room with a loaded gun, or a can of beer, should demonstrate the difference between them.

That is DIRECT/INDIRECT cause of danger. A gun can directly kill the boy. Alcohol? so what if the kid is drunk? What danger is he in?

If you still don't understand the difference between the 2 through this demonstration, then I am out of words. Consider your battle won.

[bmulls]

Ok, let's deal with statistics for a moment here. There are only 2 situations, so it'll be easy.

A) based on your statistics on how many home owners own guns, and how many were used per year, you said 99.9999% gun usage were safe.
In this case, the equivalent statistic for alcohol would be: looking at all the alcohol that sits around a home unconsumed (unused), which is nearly 100% in all families, and then comparing it finally to a number of death caused by alcohol. Good luck with that.

B) How about comparing them when they are finally used? Guns fired, alcohol consumed. What is the rate of fatality between them?

That question there, would you place a 5 year old boy in a room with a loaded gun, or a can of beer, should demonstrate the difference between them.

That is DIRECT/INDIRECT cause of danger. A gun can directly kill the boy. Alcohol? so what if the kid is drunk? What danger is he in?

If you still don't understand the difference between the 2 through this demonstration, then I am out of words. Consider your battle won.

That is not a logical argument.

I am talking about the overall death tolls caused by alcohol and guns annually.

What I would give a 5 year old has nothing to do with anything.

[miller-time]

:roll:

How are they in his favor?

50.4 million people own guns. 49.6 million of them will not kill anybody with them. Assuming each person uses their gun once per year, the statistics are still 99.999% of the time a gun is fired it is done safely.

Now if we are more realistic and assume on average (some more, some less) each person uses their gun 5-10 times per year, the statistics swing even more wildly in my favor. We're talking 99.999999999999999999% of the time a gun is fired, it is fired safely.

But people aren't drinking 5-10 times a year. The majority of drinkers (which I would hazard a guess and say the total is more than the number gun owners) are drinking weekly and daily. And yet with so much more prevlent alcohol use they are only raking up 5,000 more total deaths per year (based on the figures you gave).

If people consumed alcohol as much as they used their guns imagine how low the number would be. 5-10 drinking sessions a year for everyone and I'd conservatively claim you would slash the total deaths in half.

[ripthekik]

That is not a logical argument.

I am talking about the overall death tolls caused by alcohol and guns annually.

What I would give a 5 year old has nothing to do with anything.
You can't used overal death toll, because by your own argument, we need to look at rates! Alcohol usage rate is nearly about a million times more than guns in the country. Use rates: what is the rate of a death caused, everytime an alcohol beverage is consumed, compared with what is the death rate caused every time a gun is fired?

I'm using the example to show you the difference in indirect/direct danger. Do you finally see it now?

[bmulls]

But people aren't drinking 5-10 times a year. The majority of drinkers (which I would hazard a guess and say the total is more than the number gun owners) are drinking weekly and daily. And yet with so much more prevlent alcohol use they are only raking up 5,000 more total deaths per year (based on the figures you gave).

If people consumed alcohol as much as they used their guns imagine how low the number would be. 5-10 drinking sessions a year for everyone and I'd conservatively claim you would slash the total deaths in half.

I don't care about the exact number of drinkers or drinks or gun shots fired. His point was 99.99999999% of alcohol use is safe, thus it shouldn't be banned. The same is true of firearm use, yet he thinks we should ban it.

[bmulls]

You can't used overal death toll, because by your own argument, we need to look at rates! Alcohol usage rate is nearly about a million times more than guns in the country. Use rates: what is the rate of a death caused, everytime an alcohol beverage is consumed, compared with what is the death rate caused every time a gun is fired?

I'm using the example to show you the difference in indirect/direct danger. Do you finally see it now?

Irresponsbile gun use kills people. Irresponsible alcohol use kills people. Irresponsible use accounts for tiny fractions of less than 1% in both cases.

Yet you think 1 should be banned and the other not. Do you finally see how your views don't make sense?

[miller-time]

I don't care about the exact number of drinkers or drinks or gun shots fired. His point was 99.99999999% of alcohol use is safe, thus it shouldn't be banned. The same is true of firearm use, yet he thinks we should ban it.

Well I'm not sure of many alcohol related incidents that have caused the deaths of multiple teachers and students or movie goers.

Right now all you've shown yourself is that at a 1:1 comparison firearms are more dangerous than alcohol.

Additionally, these recent deaths aren't caused by "irresponsible" use. Once alcohol can be used by violent people to cause mass death then we might have more cause for alarm. Right now alcohol related deaths are only caused by irresponsibility.

[MMM]

Irresponsbile gun use kills people. Irresponsible alcohol use kills people. Irresponsible use accounts for tiny fractions of less than 1% in both cases.

Yet you think 1 should be banned and the other not. Do you finally see how your views don't make sense?

he has never said that it should be banned, restrictions like many other countries implement should be considered. The rest of the world is so far ahead of America on this issues and other crime related issues.

[ripthekik]

this argument is still going on? seriously?? :oldlol:
'
they are NOT equal. ok, let's say there is more death caused by alcohol per year than guns. Say 55000 alcohol to 50000 by guns.

55000 death caused by alcohol/ 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 cans of beer opened

50000 death caused by guns/ 9999999999 guns fired

think this is still a fair comparison? the stupidity, goddamn

you have more chances of winning the lottery than a death caused by alcohol. think about it. about a million cans of beer are being opened right now as I type this post. Do you think you can take the same chances with guns?

[dunksby]

I check out these gun control threads to see what new analogies are in and what sort of refreshment is being compared to something that was invented to kill people easier.

[miller-time]

this argument is still going on? seriously?? :oldlol:
'
they are NOT equal. ok, let's say there is more death caused by alcohol per year than guns. Say 55000 alcohol to 50000 by guns.

55000 death caused by alcohol/ 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 cans of beer opened

50000 death caused by guns/ 9999999999 guns fired

think this is still a fair comparison? the stupidity, goddamn

you have more chances of winning the lottery than a death caused by alcohol. think about it. about a million cans of beer are being opened right now as I type this post. Do you think you can take the same chances with guns?

If he doesn't get it by now I give up even talking to him about this point. bmulls, it is time for you to move on to your next argument for guns, or restart one of your old ones, the one about how mass killings only make up a small amount of total firearm deaths was a good one.

[ripthekik]

If he doesn't get it by now I give up even talking to him about this point. bmulls, it is time for you to move on to your next argument for guns, or restart one of your old ones, the one about how mass killings only make up a small amount of total firearm deaths was a good one.
Thanks man, I agree, too much time wasted here. Was just going to rep back, but I'd given too much in the past 24 hours.

[Chapallaz]

So with all the talk about Mexico, Russia and stats being skweded, can we all agree the USA is looking good in the gun related homocide department?


Good.

[GatorKid117]

I check out these gun control threads to see what new analogies are in and what sort of refreshment is being compared to something that was invented to kill people easier.

Its amusing isn't it?

Shooting guns = drinking alcohol

:roll:

[bmulls]

this argument is still going on? seriously?? :oldlol:
'
they are NOT equal. ok, let's say there is more death caused by alcohol per year than guns. Say 55000 alcohol to 50000 by guns.

55000 death caused by alcohol/ 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 cans of beer opened

50000 death caused by guns/ 9999999999 guns fired

think this is still a fair comparison? the stupidity, goddamn

you have more chances of winning the lottery than a death caused by alcohol. think about it. about a million cans of beer are being opened right now as I type this post. Do you think you can take the same chances with guns?

So if you want to start counting beers opened, then we need to start counting bullets fired too right? I usually shoot around 1000 rounds of .22 at the range in a couple of hours, and I shoot around twice a month. Extrapolate that over 50 million people and we're looking at billions and billions of bullets fired. You get the point.

All you're doing is splitting hairs now. Trying to argue whether alcohol use is 99.999999% or 99.9999999999999999999999% safe is ridiculous. The bottom line is irresponsible gun use accounts for an incredibly tiny percentage of total gun use, same as alcohol.

At the end of the day thousands of people end up dead for "worthless" hobbies, yet you support one and not the other.

[bmulls]

Its amusing isn't it?

Shooting guns = drinking alcohol

:roll:


Dead people = dead people

:roll: That's hilarious right?


...


:biggums:

[Rameek]

Best post in this thread j/k


japan and south korea lead the world in sword/ninja star related deaths

I think the message is confused. No one is saying banning guns. Increase the restrictions of gun accessibility.

I wonder when people here will broach the economic portion of banning or restrictions....

The comparison of alcohol to guns is ludicrous and a stretch. Simply put one is a weapon of death/targeting the other is a beverage thirst quenching. A gun being used and a beverage being used is incomparable. The beverage has a longer daisy chain of mitigating circumstances to cause death.

I would love to hear how the ecomomics of gun restriction/banning?

[GatorKid117]

Dead people = dead people

:roll: That's hilarious right?


...


:biggums:

Your a sick individual, man. Laughing about dead people. You should stick to terrible analogies. At least we can laugh at you.

[heyhey]

it's gonna require more than just prohibition to solve the problem. the problem is the culture of violence that's already endemic.

and honestly despite the tragedy that just occurred, I doubt there will be substantive effort towards tighter gun control. The idea of right to firearm is so steeped into the american culture that anything contrary will meet no just opposition from special interest but popular outrage.

People also take what they want to see from tragedies like Sandy hook. I know many people are talking about "arming" school staffs as a response.

[DCL]

Caracas, Venezuela's 92 per 100,000 homicide rate trumps the US's rate of 3.2 per 100,000.

but then again, caracas is the murder capital of the world.

The US homicide rates are alarming, but the media does augment the situation a lot. not everyone is getting killed at schools or malls everyday. the odds are still in your favor when you go to a mall or movie theather to not randomly be killed. this is not to downplay the tragedies, but in places like caracas, pretty much 1 out of 1,000 is statistically destined to be murdered in the city.

that's fkin insane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Venezuela