US gun related murder rates compared to other countries

[Graviton]

Wow, okay I'm half convinced you're trolling because you're using a hollywood flick as a source.

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 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 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/pro...am/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