Media's Anti-gun Narrative Destroyed By Justice Dept. Report

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

THe media is saying four things:

1. Assault weapons are a major problem and need to be banned
2. Gun violence is getting worse
3. School shootings are getting worse
4. Criminals en mass are arming themselves through a gunshow loophole

None of those things are true according to the FBI's own Bureau of Justice Statistics

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616

Highlights:


    Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
    Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.
    Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.
    From 1993 to 2011, about 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun.
    Males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide from 1993 to 2010.
    About 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police in 2007-11.
    Between '93 and '11, the murder rate in schools dropped by almost a third; from 29 to 20
    Less than one-percent of state prisoners caught with a gun purchased it at a gun show

If you are an American you are statistically safer now than you have ever been in the last 20 years. Not only is gun violence down despite what the news says, BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics) says rapes are down by 58%.

My take aways are; the most common weapon for crime is a handgun and not an assault rifle, it still sucks to be black, welcome to America! The gunshow loophole is kind bullshit, and medical techniques in the wake of the war on terror have advanced leaps treatment of gunshot wounds, or maybe as a nation we all became terrible terrible shots

Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

Republicans count on you being white, rich, straight, Christian, and male.

Democrats count on you being everyone else, which apparently is a lot of people.

Are we talking the wisdom of Todd Akin?

The wisdom of Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

The wisdom of Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain?

Because judging by those, I'm not seeing a great deal of "wisdom"

EDIT: Also, since I know your post was made to be as deliberately inflammatory as possible...

image

Only 11.000 more people than anywhere else in the west died from gunshots in your country from unnecessary gun violence in 2011? How quaint. I'll go off and amuse myself with the fact that I don't have to worry about these stats at all, regardless of what they had shown, while this thread inevitably turns to flame-war *tips his hat*

Nikolaz72:
Only 11.000 more people than anywhere else in the west died from gunshots in your country from unnecessary gun violence in 2011? How quaint. I'll go off and amuse myself with the fact that I don't have to worry about these stats at all, regardless of what they had shown, while this thread inevitably turns to flame-war *tips his hat*

There won't be a flame war. If either of the above posters follow their pattern, they won't post again in this thread. Same thing Hardcore_Gamer does.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

Republicans count on you being white, rich, straight, Christian, and male.

Democrats count on you being everyone else, which apparently is a lot of people.

Are we talking the wisdom of Todd Akin?

The wisdom of Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

The wisdom of Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain?

Because judging by those, I'm not seeing a great deal of "wisdom"

EDIT: Also, since I know your post was made to be as deliberately inflammatory as possible...

image

Stereotyping and making other broad generalizations from the actions of a few people in a group in the face of a complex topic you don't understand! Gotta love 'em!

I love it when those that hate stereotyping abide the stereotyping of groups they hate.

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
...
Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides...
...
Between '93 and '11, the murder rate in schools dropped by almost a third; from 29 to 20
...

I'm sorry, but these figures are still utterly disgusting.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Nikolaz72:
Only 11.000 more people than anywhere else in the west died from gunshots in your country from unnecessary gun violence in 2011? How quaint. I'll go off and amuse myself with the fact that I don't have to worry about these stats at all, regardless of what they had shown, while this thread inevitably turns to flame-war *tips his hat*

There won't be a flame war. If either of the above posters follow their pattern, they won't post again in this thread. Same thing Hardcore_Gamer does.

Eh, for good measure I'll drop some stats just like they did.

image
image

Regardless of the falling amount of deaths, the reduction of a problem does not necessarily mean it Isn't a problem. US Gunviolence has fallen like this before, only to be expected to rise again. Which it is, by 2015 it's predicted that the amount of homicides in the US will surpass that of,

wait for it.

Deaths caused by automobiles.
image
If as many people actively KILL others with guns, as are killed by car-accidents. It's logical that it would be the least the Government could do to enforce the same restrictions. Either that or remove restrictions from automobiles until the numbers even out a bit more.

Also, Isn't it funny They picked 1993 for a reason, you can see on that list. And they released the numbers now, while firearms related homicides are on a quick rise once again. Because wait a couple of years, and these numbers wont mean jack fucking shit.

Rather than say Gun Homocides have risen 22% from 2000 due to say, the George Bush administration, 9/11, less restrictions on guns.

They say it's fallen 33% from 1993 due to... What exactly? Because it's most certainly not falling. It's going up, and fast. It fell during the Democratic Administration of the 90's then went on the rise again under Bush. Only to further steadily rise under Obama as little is done to restrict guns.

Big_Willie_Styles:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

Republicans count on you being white, rich, straight, Christian, and male.

Democrats count on you being everyone else, which apparently is a lot of people.

Are we talking the wisdom of Todd Akin?

The wisdom of Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

The wisdom of Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain?

Because judging by those, I'm not seeing a great deal of "wisdom"

EDIT: Also, since I know your post was made to be as deliberately inflammatory as possible...

image

Stereotyping and making other broad generalizations from the actions of a few people in a group in the face of a complex topic you don't understand! Gotta love 'em!

I love it when those that hate stereotyping abide the stereotyping of groups they hate.

They wouldn't be generalizations if they weren't proven true time and time again.

Also, I understand plenty about this particular topic. I understand that the US has had more gun deaths in the last 10 years than in every other country on the planet combined.

I also understand that more Americans have been killed by other Americans with firearms since 1967 then in every war America has ever fought in.

I ALSO understand that the amount of gun deaths decreased after the assault weapon ban, and re-increased after it was repealed.

So... you can post your flawed studies to back up your desire to own your firearms for some paranoid power fantasy about blowing away the dude who tried to rob your house (despite that over 70% of home invaders since 2000 were unarmed, and 23% carried a knife or similar weapon), but it doesn't change the facts.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Stereotyping and making other broad generalizations from the actions of a few people in a group in the face of a complex topic you don't understand! Gotta love 'em!

I love it when those that hate stereotyping abide the stereotyping of groups they hate.

You just stereotyped Democratic voters as ignorant and having a short memory and claimed Republicans are all about wisdom. Please don't be so blatantly hypocritical when somebody points out the faults in your argument with a satire of your statement.

---

OT: Good to see that the situation is less awful and just horrendous then. Do you think this trend will continue? Do you have data for the recent decade alone? I'm especially curious about the development since the recession started: Did it go up again in the aftermath because of economic unrest and uncertainty, unemployment etc. or not?

EDIT: @Nikolaz72
Hehe, thank you so much for that graph. It's lovely to see the cherry-picking in action. Also, note what I said above about the recession? Obviously this isn't saying anything about causation, but note the correlation with the - now again rising - number of firearm-deaths in recent years.

Big_Willie_Styles:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

Republicans count on you being white, rich, straight, Christian, and male.

Democrats count on you being everyone else, which apparently is a lot of people.

Are we talking the wisdom of Todd Akin?

The wisdom of Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

The wisdom of Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain?

Because judging by those, I'm not seeing a great deal of "wisdom"

EDIT: Also, since I know your post was made to be as deliberately inflammatory as possible...

image

Stereotyping and making other broad generalizations from the actions of a few people in a group in the face of a complex topic you don't understand! Gotta love 'em!

I love it when those that hate stereotyping abide the stereotyping of groups they hate.

I love it when people make broad generalisations, complain about broad generalisations and accuse the other part of hypocrisy all at the same time. I like it when someone gets all of the nonsense that normally occurs in this sort of thread out of the way in two posts.

Seriously mate, if you are going to make blanket assumptions about democrats, don't whine when democrat supporters make the same cracks about your side.

Skeleon:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Stereotyping and making other broad generalizations from the actions of a few people in a group in the face of a complex topic you don't understand! Gotta love 'em!

I love it when those that hate stereotyping abide the stereotyping of groups they hate.

You just stereotyped Democratic voters as ignorant and having a short memory and claimed Republicans are all about wisdom. Please don't be so blatantly hypocritical when somebody points out the faults in your argument with a satire of your statement.

---

OT: Good to see that the situation is less awful and just horrendous then. Do you think this trend will continue? Do you have data for the recent decade alone? I'm especially curious about the development since the recession started: Did it go up again in the aftermath because of economic unrest and uncertainty, unemployment etc. or not?

I put some other related .gov stats in my post I believe. Firearms related crime is on the rise again, and deaths due to it will surpass that of automobiles in the US by 2015.

If you look at the stats of 1993 to 2011, you will notice something funny aswell.

They chose 1993 to 2011 rather than say, 2003 to 2013... Why is that? Look at the stats and take your own guess ^^

NameIsRobertPaulson:
They wouldn't be generalizations if they weren't proven true time and time again.

Also, I understand plenty about this particular topic. I understand that the US has had more gun deaths in the last 10 years than in every other country on the planet combined.

I also understand that more Americans have been killed by other Americans with firearms since 1967 then in every war America has ever fought in.

I ALSO understand that the amount of gun deaths decreased after the assault weapon ban, and re-increased after it was repealed.

So... you can post your flawed studies to back up your desire to own your firearms for some paranoid power fantasy about blowing away the dude who tried to rob your house (despite that over 70% of home invaders since 2000 were unarmed, and 23% carried a knife or similar weapon), but it doesn't change the facts.

Hilarious that you think that. It's not that Democrats are wrong, it's that they believe so many things that just aren't so.

Gun deaths add suicides and many other things to murder tolls. Gun murders are a lot less than you say, Mr. Moore. Also, that point doesn't really prove an argument in any way.

Once again, that includes suicides, not just murders. But, let's continue right along.

No, the assault weapons ban had no measurable effect on the murder toll.

Your flaws are obvious. You chose your language carefully to build your house of cards point on shifting sands. All it takes is someone who sees the flaw to flick it down if time doesn't do it for him.

psijac:
My take aways are; the most common weapon for crime is a handgun and not an assault rifle,

Given that it is exceedingly difficult to own an assault rifle in the US, and very easy to own a handgun, that's a bit of a no-brainer.

If you meant "assault weapon", though, that is a fair point. Handguns are something that should be treated a lot more seriously than they are in the US.

Skeleon:
You just stereotyped Democratic voters as ignorant and having a short memory and claimed Republicans are all about wisdom. Please don't be so blatantly hypocritical when somebody points out the faults in your argument with a satire of your statement.

---

OT: Good to see that the situation is less awful and just horrendous then. Do you think this trend will continue? Do you have data for the recent decade alone? I'm especially curious about the development since the recession started: Did it go up again in the aftermath because of economic unrest and uncertainty, unemployment etc. or not?

EDIT: @Nikolaz72
Hehe, thank you so much for that graph. It's lovely to see the cherry-picking in action. Also, note what I said above about the recession? Obviously this isn't saying anything about causation, but note the correlation with the - now again rising - number of firearm-deaths in recent years.

I never claimed to hate stereotyping. Or did you forget the first part of that sentence? Went right over your head, apparently.

Horrendous? It's been decreasing for like 20 years. You want it to go down faster? The government can't really prevent crime. It can only punish the violators.

It is discussing deaths, not murders. Suicide, which is heavy with firearms because of how relatively painless it is compared to the other options, is part of the "gun deaths" number.

the clockmaker:
I love it when people make broad generalisations, complain about broad generalisations and accuse the other part of hypocrisy all at the same time. I like it when someone gets all of the nonsense that normally occurs in this sort of thread out of the way in two posts.

Seriously mate, if you are going to make blanket assumptions about democrats, don't whine when democrat supporters make the same cracks about your side.

I never claimed to hate generalizations. I just find that a liberal doing it is hilariously hypocritical.

I made a broad generalization that isn't insanely racist and sexist. Also, hilarious to see a liberal do that as well, by the way.

Broad generalizations about a group that is self-selecting (and not things that do not change) aren't really stereotypes anyway. It's a mindset I point out, not a skin tone or sex or anything we cannot change.

Now, to see a liberal use Republicans as a stick to beat down white male heterosexuals (or whatever the group that is still allowed to be stereotyped and ridiculed by liberals is at this point) just makes me laugh at the rank hypocrisy.

Nikolaz72:
I put some other related .gov stats in my post I believe. Firearms related crime is on the rise again, and deaths due to it will surpass that of automobiles in the US by 2015.

If you look at the stats of 1993 to 2011, you will notice something funny aswell.

They chose 1993 to 2011 rather than say, 2003 to 2013... Why is that? Look at the stats and take your own guess ^^

Thanks. As I mentioned in my EDIT (probably too late for you to see), the correlation with the rising firearms-deaths in recent years with the worsening economic situation is intriguing, although it doesn't prove causation.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Horrendous? It's been decreasing for like 20 years. You want it to go down faster? The government can't really prevent crime. It can only punish the violators.

It's been increasing since 2004, according to @Nikolaz72 graph. Choosing a particularly high peak in 1993 to compare it to is considered disingenious. If I choose to compare it to 1986, the rate is the same. No improvement at all! If I choose to compare it to 2000, it's gotten much worse! Cherry-picking the data is not a legitimate way to make an argument.

It is discussing deaths, not murders. Suicide, which is heavy with firearms because of how relatively painless it is compared to the other options, is part of the "gun deaths" number.

I know. But you know what else? Other methods of suicide are much less successful, too. How many of these people might still be alive today if there were no gun handy? But I've already given up on the USA in that regard. There are too many weapons in circulation at this point. Gun control should be implemented, but benefits would take years, decades even to manifest.

I never claimed to hate stereotyping. Or did you forget the first part of that sentence? Went right over your head, apparently.
[...]
Now, to see a liberal use Republicans as a stick to beat down white male heterosexuals (or whatever the group that is still allowed to be stereotyped and ridiculed by liberals is at this point) just makes me laugh at the rank hypocrisy.

I'm not even sure what that's meant to mean. Then why do you mind when Republicans are stereotyped? That's where hypocrisy enters into it, when you want to stereotype others but don't want yours to be stereotyped in return. Also, you do realize a lot of Democratic voters are white heterosexual males, right?

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Eh, for good measure I'll drop some stats just like they did.

image
did you see that little star at the bottom? *Excluding Mexico. Please find me a picture graph which includes Mexico. Mexico only has one gun store to service the entire country

Deaths caused by automobiles.
image
If as many people actively KILL others with guns, as are killed by car-accidents. It's logical that it would be the least the Government could do to enforce the same restrictions. Either that or remove restrictions from automobiles until the numbers even out a bit more.

Also, Isn't it funny They picked 1993 for a reason, you can see on that list. And they released the numbers now, while firearms related homicides are on a quick rise once again. Because wait a couple of years, and these numbers wont mean jack fucking shit.

Rather than say Gun Homocides have risen 22% from 2000 due to say, the George Bush administration, 9/11, less restrictions on guns.

They say it's fallen 33% from 1993 due to... What exactly? Because it's most certainly not falling. It's going up, and fast. It fell during the Democratic Administration of the 90's then went on the rise again under Bush. Only to further steadily rise under Obama as little is done to restrict guns.

did you see that little star at the bottom? *Excluding Mexico. Please find me a picture graph which includes Mexico. Mexico only has one gun store to service the entire country.

Also economic factors can explain both trends on the second chart. People don't have jobs so they don't have to drive to work. If the economy ever returns to normal Motor vehicle death will shoot back up.

[edit: second graph is accurate ignore this part]Your second chart is not an equal comparison to the study done because it list firearm deaths not homicides. Make for a large portion of firearms deaths and guns have nothing to do with that. Japan is ranked #10 in suicides where are the USA is ranked #33

Skeleon:
It's been increasing since 2004, according to @Nikolaz72 graph. Choosing a particularly high peak in 1993 to compare it to is considered disingenious. If I choose to compare it to 1986, the rate is the same. No improvement at all! If I choose to compare it to 2000, it's gotten much worse! Cherry-picking the data is not a legitimate way to make an argument.

It is discussing deaths, not murders. Suicide, which is heavy with firearms because of how relatively painless it is compared to the other options, is part of the "gun deaths" number.

I know. But you know what else? Other methods of suicide are much less successful, too. How many of these people might still be alive today if there were no gun handy? But I've already given up on the USA in that regard. There are too many weapons in circulation at this point. Gun control should be implemented, but benefits would take years, decades even to manifest.

I never claimed to hate stereotyping. Or did you forget the first part of that sentence? Went right over your head, apparently.
[...]
Now, to see a liberal use Republicans as a stick to beat down white male heterosexuals (or whatever the group that is still allowed to be stereotyped and ridiculed by liberals is at this point) just makes me laugh at the rank hypocrisy.

I'm not even sure what that's meant to mean. Then why do you mind when Republicans are stereotyped? Also, you do realize a lot of Democratic voters are white heterosexual males, right?

It's not been increasing since 2004. It's gone down every single year, the homicide rate. The homicide rate is the only one that truly matters.

And how many would have blown themselves up in a crowd of innocent civilians? Your point is emotional banter and fluff. Try again. How many people try to commit suicide in front of other people? Most do it alone so that no one can stop them. Suicidal people are messed up in the head. They've given up. And unless prevented by an external force, they'll try it again. Cutting your throat is probably more effective than shooting yourself in the throat, since one is almost guaranteed to kill you just not immediately. It is slower and more painful to cut one's throat. Seppuku is also probably more effective since it is designed to be the most painful way to die possible due to the inherent "I am dishonored" aspect of it. Once that blade is plunged into your lower abdomen, it's unlikely you'll live unless immediately rushed to a hospital without slicing the blade any further (and then still not that likely to survive.) Man, my Asian Studies minor is getting used! Thanks "47 Ronin" for the exact way that works!

I realize that, but I find it funny that the first person to respond to me decided to call Republicans all old white heterosexual men. It's such a tortured argument. I laugh at its pointlessness. It's fun to do so.

Big_Willie_Styles:
And how many would have blown themselves up in a crowd of innocent civilians? Your point is emotional banter and fluff. Try again. How many people try to commit suicide in front of other people? Most do it alone so that no one can stop them. Suicidal people are messed up in the head. They've given up. And unless prevented by an external force, they'll try it again.

Except of course in the really real world. In reality, any number of people attempt suicide, fail (or do so half-heartedly) and survive. Having a gun around provides a quick and easy way of doing it.

Yes, in lieu of a gun, you could commit suicide by seppuku. Only, in the really real world, people don't tend to do that.

Australia's tightening of firearm laws in the 90s led to a dramatic drop in suicide by firearms, without a similar increase in other methods.

Big_Willie_Styles:
And how many would have blown themselves up in a crowd of innocent civilians? Your point is emotional banter and fluff.

Wow. Just wow. I think my work here is done. Thanks for a hilarious time.

Just one other note, because this is important:

How many people try to commit suicide in front of other people? Most do it alone so that no one can stop them. Suicidal people are messed up in the head. They've given up. And unless prevented by an external force, they'll try it again.

Actually, nobody was talking about trying suicide in front of people. Folks attempt suicide quite often. Cutting your wrists or taking too many sleeping pills often doesn't kill you, though. Quite often, people are found out to be suicidally depressed only after their early suicide attempts come to light. Often they even call an ambulance after having taken the pills because they realise it was a mistake/because they fear death. Then they get help. A nice little bit of trivia: Women attempt suicide more often than men. But men are "successful" in their suicides more often than women. This is because of the choice of method. Guns are particularly effective, that's a problem.

psijac:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Eh, for good measure I'll drop some stats just like they did.

image
did you see that little star at the bottom? *Excluding Mexico. Please find me a picture graph which includes Mexico. Mexico only has one gun store to service the entire country

Deaths caused by automobiles.
image
If as many people actively KILL others with guns, as are killed by car-accidents. It's logical that it would be the least the Government could do to enforce the same restrictions. Either that or remove restrictions from automobiles until the numbers even out a bit more.

Also, Isn't it funny They picked 1993 for a reason, you can see on that list. And they released the numbers now, while firearms related homicides are on a quick rise once again. Because wait a couple of years, and these numbers wont mean jack fucking shit.

Rather than say Gun Homocides have risen 22% from 2000 due to say, the George Bush administration, 9/11, less restrictions on guns.

They say it's fallen 33% from 1993 due to... What exactly? Because it's most certainly not falling. It's going up, and fast. It fell during the Democratic Administration of the 90's then went on the rise again under Bush. Only to further steadily rise under Obama as little is done to restrict guns.

did you see that little star at the bottom? *Excluding Mexico. Please find me a picture graph which includes Mexico. Mexico only has one gun store to service the entire country.

Also economic factors can explain both trends on the second chart. People don't have jobs so they don't have to drive to work. If the economy ever returns to normal Motor vehicle death will shoot back up.

Your second chart is not an equal comparison to the study done because it list firearm deaths not homicides. Make for a large portion of firearms deaths and guns have nothing to do with that. Japan is ranked #10 in suicides where are the USA is ranked #33

Mexico is in a state of anarchy caused by the fact that every major drugs operations decided to use the already broken country as a headquarters. Several of it's cities have gone outside state jurisdiction, or at least have done so practically. And the amount of deaths are in the hundreds every day from the ongoing violence within the country.

Making yourself proud by having less gun violence than Mexico, would be like being proud that not as many people are dying to guns as of the end of WW2. It's excluding mexico for a reason, mainly the reason that there is no way to measure how many people are dying in there, that being said. I could bring you a graph with Brazil, Zimbabwe, Uganda and other countries with more gun-homocides than the US (No wait, Brazil has less. Guess... Venezuela then?), it still wouldn't go even an inch to give you any kind of moral-highground or a point, It'd just show that the US in its prime is only surpassed by de-stablized third-world countries in terms of gun-caused violence.

2009 has been the last date we've been able to, in any safe way measure the amount of deaths due to guns within the country. But currently it's estimated at 15.000 a year due to the drug-war alone.

Ehem, satisfied? Or do you want to post about how Mexico has a supposed guncontrol or that Columbia has too, youknow. To make it seem like the US is doing something right by comparison.

image

As said, there is no 'safe' way to measure the exact numbers, but this is the best you'll get. I guess you can rest easy knowing that the US is not in a state of Anarchy, or in the middle of a civil war. Or something else that might make it top the list rather than just make it top the list of civilized-stable countries.

thaluikhain:

Big_Willie_Styles:
And how many would have blown themselves up in a crowd of innocent civilians? Your point is emotional banter and fluff. Try again. How many people try to commit suicide in front of other people? Most do it alone so that no one can stop them. Suicidal people are messed up in the head. They've given up. And unless prevented by an external force, they'll try it again.

Except of course in the really real world. In reality, any number of people attempt suicide, fail (or do so half-heartedly) and survive. Having a gun around provides a quick and easy way of doing it.

Yes, in lieu of a gun, you could commit suicide by seppuku. Only, in the really real world, people don't tend to do that.

Australia's tightening of firearm laws in the 90s led to a dramatic drop in suicide by firearms, without a similar increase in other methods.

Yes, because the homogeneous society of Australia is easily comparable to the heterogeneous society of America!

Preventing suicide is not the proper role of government.

Yes, people survive suicide sometimes. Totally. Because said people not only think they've failed at life, but they also fail at death.

Seppuku is not all that common, but it is one effective and painful and slow way to go.

The painlessness and speed of killing oneself with a gun is far more important than its effectiveness. A knife plunged up the throat is also effective, just painful and takes a little bit of blood letting before death. Throwing oneself off the top of a building is also insanely effective, but there's that whole "I can see my death approach slowly" thing.

Painless and quick is why people use guns. Guns also cost a lot of money, so it's not even the easiest or cheapest method. (A tall place is.)

And then there's the whole "Just because it's illegal doesn't mean people won't do it" thing about making it harder to get guns. Guns still exist. You can't uninvent them. You can't stop research into making them better. You can't do anything. People will do what they want. Their morality (whatever it is, being completely individual can be anything they want it to be) is the only thing that stops them.

Big_Willie_Styles:

the clockmaker:
I love it when people make broad generalisations, complain about broad generalisations and accuse the other part of hypocrisy all at the same time. I like it when someone gets all of the nonsense that normally occurs in this sort of thread out of the way in two posts.

Seriously mate, if you are going to make blanket assumptions about democrats, don't whine when democrat supporters make the same cracks about your side.

I never claimed to hate generalizations.

You complained about their use instead of responding to them, come on mate, don't play games

I just find that a liberal doing it is hilariously hypocritical.

Again, you are just putting 'liberals' to one side and setting out what is okay for them to do and what is okay for you to do, that is, at the very least, intellectually dishonest.

I made a broad generalization that isn't insanely racist and sexist. Also, hilarious to see a liberal do that as well, by the way.

No, you just implied, fuck that actually, you just stated that people who vote the other way to you are dumber than you.

Broad generalizations about a group that is self-selecting (and not things that do not change) aren't really stereotypes anyway. It's a mindset I point out, not a skin tone or sex or anything we cannot change.

Annnnnnnd you clearly don't know what a stereotype is, which is useful information. Just because something is not an -ism, does not mean it is not a stereotype. Collingwood supporters being toothless sisterfuckers is a stereotype, people who drive sports cars being entitled twats is a stereotype.

Now, to see a liberal use Republicans as a stick to beat down white male heterosexuals (or whatever the group that is still allowed to be stereotyped and ridiculed by liberals is at this point) just makes me laugh at the rank hypocrisy.

The only person here who is both using and whining about stereotypes here is you. The only hypocrite here is you.

Big_Willie_Styles:

the clockmaker:
I love it when people make broad generalisations, complain about broad generalisations and accuse the other part of hypocrisy all at the same time. I like it when someone gets all of the nonsense that normally occurs in this sort of thread out of the way in two posts.

Seriously mate, if you are going to make blanket assumptions about democrats, don't whine when democrat supporters make the same cracks about your side.

I never claimed to hate generalizations. I just find that a liberal doing it is hilariously hypocritical.

I made a broad generalization that isn't insanely racist and sexist. Also, hilarious to see a liberal do that as well, by the way.

Broad generalizations about a group that is self-selecting (and not things that do not change) aren't really stereotypes anyway. It's a mindset I point out, not a skin tone or sex or anything we cannot change.

Now, to see a liberal use Republicans as a stick to beat down white male heterosexuals (or whatever the group that is still allowed to be stereotyped and ridiculed by liberals is at this point) just makes me laugh at the rank hypocrisy.

You're kidding? Please tell me you're kidding.

Yeah... we're done. You obviously want no actual discussion, and just want your Fox News views validated.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Yes, because the homogeneous society of Australia is easily comparable to the heterogeneous society of America!

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Australia is homogenous now. Thanks mate, I'll tell them to bring back the white australia policy, kick out the many many many minorities and change the Lyrics to 'I am Australian'. Because apparently we are homogenous.
Everyone else will laugh as well, and also point out the unsettling fact that yanks have a tendency to claim 'there would be less gun violence if there was only white people.'

Nikolaz72:

Mexico is in a state of anarchy caused by the fact that every major drugs operations decided to use the already broken country as a headquarters. Several of it's cities have gone outside state jurisdiction, or at least have done so practically. And the amount of deaths are in the hundreds every day from the ongoing violence within the country.

Making yourself proud by having less gun violence than Mexico, would be like being proud that not as many people are dying to guns as of the end of WW2. It's excluding mexico for a reason, mainly the reason that there is no way to measure how many people are dying in there, that being said. I could bring you a graph with Brazil, Zimbabwe, Uganda and other countries with more gun-homocides than the US, it still wouldn't go even an inch to give you any kind of moral-highground or a point, It'd just show that the US in its prime is only surpassed by de-stablized third-world countries in terms of gun-caused violence.

Your chart is intellectually dishonest it tells you USA is king in gun violence of all the Developed nations that is not true. I could totally accept your rationalization if someone had not tried to pull the wool over my eyes. I am obligated to point that out. Here is a chart with Mexico included
image

Skeleon:
Actually, nobody was talking about trying suicide in front of people. Folks attempt suicide quite often. Cutting your wrists or taking too many sleeping pills often doesn't kill you, though. Quite often, people are found out to be suicidally depressed only after their early suicide attempts come to light. Often they even call an ambulance after having taken the pills because they realise it was a mistake/because they fear death. Then they get help. A nice little bit of trivia: Women attempt suicide more often than men. But men are "successful" in their suicides more often than women. This is because of the choice of method. Guns are particularly effective, that's a problem.

Yeah, because humans have the ability to "nerf" real guns so that they are less effective. Life is not a video game. We can't just bring up the settings and fiddle around with the code to give us less effective weaponry.

In other words, women fail at suicide more than men. How many suicide attempts are cries for attention and not real attempts, as in they didn't really want to die.

Using a gun to the temple means you want death. That's why people who try to kill themselves with guns succeed.

People rarely pull the trigger on a gun at their temple if they don't want to die at that moment.

Your points have no logical solution. Chicago is currently in the midst of a months-long gang war that kills people pretty much every day. Where's the solution to that via gun control? Chicago already has tough gun laws. The gangs still get guns somehow, usually on the black market (which is the inevitable result every time something easy to make is made illegal or hard to obtain.)

The criminals will always be able to obtain firearms. That's why they're criminals. Illegality doesn't matter to their moral code.

Suicides are tragic, but the effectiveness of guns can't be measurably affected in any way.

psijac:

Nikolaz72:

Mexico is in a state of anarchy caused by the fact that every major drugs operations decided to use the already broken country as a headquarters. Several of it's cities have gone outside state jurisdiction, or at least have done so practically. And the amount of deaths are in the hundreds every day from the ongoing violence within the country.

Making yourself proud by having less gun violence than Mexico, would be like being proud that not as many people are dying to guns as of the end of WW2. It's excluding mexico for a reason, mainly the reason that there is no way to measure how many people are dying in there, that being said. I could bring you a graph with Brazil, Zimbabwe, Uganda and other countries with more gun-homocides than the US, it still wouldn't go even an inch to give you any kind of moral-highground or a point, It'd just show that the US in its prime is only surpassed by de-stablized third-world countries in terms of gun-caused violence.

Your chart is intellectually dishonest it tells you USA is king in gun violence of all the Developed nations that is not true. I could totally accept your rationalization if someone had not tried to pull the wool over my eyes. I am obligated to point that out. Here is a chart with Mexico included
image

Your chart is the dishonest one if there ever was one, go read my edited reply. But other than that I'm out of this thread. If the only way you can find a moral highground for the US is to compare yourself to a broken country, well.. Heh... It shows how desperate you are. You've gotten low.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Yeah, because humans have the ability to "nerf" real guns so that they are less effective. Life is not a video game. We can't just bring up the settings and fiddle around with the code to give us less effective weaponry.

What in the...? You think that's what gun control means?

And you think women are just "faking it"? And you think people who try to kill themselves don't have a change of heart sometimes? What about those who have a gun handy being able to go through with it more quickly than a person who still has to acquire deadly means? Time is often of the essence there. I also already argued that gun control in the USA would take a long time to have the desired effects because they are so far gone in terms of gun circulation.

I'm sorry but most of what you wrote there sounds like a big non-sequitur sandwich, just piling stereotypical responses on top of one another.

Zeh Don:

Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
...
Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides...
...
Between '93 and '11, the murder rate in schools dropped by almost a third; from 29 to 20
...

I'm sorry, but these figures are still utterly disgusting.

Nikolaz72:

psijac:

Nikolaz72:

Mexico is in a state of anarchy caused by the fact that every major drugs operations decided to use the already broken country as a headquarters. Several of it's cities have gone outside state jurisdiction, or at least have done so practically. And the amount of deaths are in the hundreds every day from the ongoing violence within the country.

Making yourself proud by having less gun violence than Mexico, would be like being proud that not as many people are dying to guns as of the end of WW2. It's excluding mexico for a reason, mainly the reason that there is no way to measure how many people are dying in there, that being said. I could bring you a graph with Brazil, Zimbabwe, Uganda and other countries with more gun-homocides than the US, it still wouldn't go even an inch to give you any kind of moral-highground or a point, It'd just show that the US in its prime is only surpassed by de-stablized third-world countries in terms of gun-caused violence.

Your chart is intellectually dishonest it tells you USA is king in gun violence of all the Developed nations that is not true. I could totally accept your rationalization if someone had not tried to pull the wool over my eyes. I am obligated to point that out. Here is a chart with Mexico included
image

Your chart is the dishonest one if there ever was one, go read my edited reply. But other than that I'm out of this thread. If the only way you can find a moral highground for the US is to compare yourself to a broken country, well.. Heh... It shows how desperate you are. You've gotten low.

The question is not whether the US can have less crime that Mexico, Britain, or any place else for that matter. The question is can the USA have less gun death than it's past self with or without gun control.

Comparing the on Nation to another is a ridiculous exercise. As comparing the personal accomplishments of yourself to another. My sister is only 2 years older than me and just bought her second home in California, I do not currently own a home. The fact I own guns and she doesn't has nothing to do with this disparity.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Skeleon:
Actually, nobody was talking about trying suicide in front of people. Folks attempt suicide quite often. Cutting your wrists or taking too many sleeping pills often doesn't kill you, though. Quite often, people are found out to be suicidally depressed only after their early suicide attempts come to light. Often they even call an ambulance after having taken the pills because they realise it was a mistake/because they fear death. Then they get help. A nice little bit of trivia: Women attempt suicide more often than men. But men are "successful" in their suicides more often than women. This is because of the choice of method. Guns are particularly effective, that's a problem.

Yeah, because humans have the ability to "nerf" real guns so that they are less effective. Life is not a video game. We can't just bring up the settings and fiddle around with the code to give us less effective weaponry.

In other words, women fail at suicide more than men. How many suicide attempts are cries for attention and not real attempts, as in they didn't really want to die.

Using a gun to the temple means you want death. That's why people who try to kill themselves with guns succeed.

People rarely pull the trigger on a gun at their temple if they don't want to die at that moment.

Your points have no logical solution. Chicago is currently in the midst of a months-long gang war that kills people pretty much every day. Where's the solution to that via gun control? Chicago already has tough gun laws. The gangs still get guns somehow, usually on the black market (which is the inevitable result every time something easy to make is made illegal or hard to obtain.)

The criminals will always be able to obtain firearms. That's why they're criminals. Illegality doesn't matter to their moral code.

Suicides are tragic, but the effectiveness of guns can't be measurably affected in any way.

1-The plan is not to limit effectiveness, it is to limit availability
2-Something being a crime makes it easier for police to actually stop it. like so
Scenario a-Cops catch someone with a weapon, weapons are legal, guy walks and kills someone
scenario b-cops catch someone with a weapon, weapons are illegal, guy goes to jail and does not kill someone
(btw, I normally drag out one of my old long posts here regarding the fallacy of crims will always have guns, but something tells me you wouldn't read it.)
3-Callng a suicide attempt a cry for help or claiming that they don't want to die is a real real real lack of understanding of the mentality of a suicidal person. Sersiously, to the point that you are kind of claiming that the sky is bright pink.

Killing yourself is not easy, it goes against every instinct that we have, which is why when someone cuts their wrists, it will take almost all the willpower that they have left to actually do it. Then, as it takes time, as it takes effort and requires them to keep going, they have more time to think and that long black tunnel gets realer and realer to them as they go on. That reality changes their mind enough that they seek help, both surviving and in the long term. IT IS NOT, I say again, IS NOT a cry for help and anyone who knows the slightest fucking thing about depression, has had to work with it, suffered it, or been trained to spot and assist would not say that.

I mean look at this thought process

cut wrists,
-I want to die, life is terrible
-Okay, cutting wrists, that is what people do in this sort of situation
-Okay, wow, that is a sharp razor, jesus, is this the best idea
-Oh shit, that is cold against the skin, I wonder if this is such a good idea
-jesus that stings, and I've barely even touched it, now I gotta try again.
-fuck that really hurts, and I still got another wrist to go
-Oh christ it still hurts, I thought I was supposed to go into shock or something
-Jesus, why am I not dead, why does dying take so fucking long
-fuck, am I dying, is this dying, I can feel cold, is that death
-I don't want to die like this
-Hello 000, I need an ambulance

Pistol
-I want to die, life is terrible
-Okay, a gun, that'll work
-BANG

psijac:
The question is not whether the US can have less crime that Mexico, Britain, or any place else for that matter. The question is can the USA have less gun death than it's past self with or without gun control. Comparing the on Nation to another is a ridiculous exercise.

My sister is only 2 years older than me and just bought her second home in California, I do not currently own a home. The fact I own guns and she doesn't has nothing to do with this disparity.

No one is suggesting adopting things whole cloth, we are suggesting looking at plans adopted elsewhere and adapting them to the US and its situation.

And no, your personal anecdote does not have do to with the fact that you own a gun and she does not, it does not have anything to do with anything. I am confused as to why you have brought it up.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Stereotyping and making other broad generalizations from the actions of a few people in a group in the face of a complex topic you don't understand! Gotta love 'em!

I love it when those that hate stereotyping abide the stereotyping of groups they hate.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

Was this intentional?

thaluikhain:

psijac:
My take aways are; the most common weapon for crime is a handgun and not an assault rifle,

Given that it is exceedingly difficult to own an assault rifle in the US, and very easy to own a handgun, that's a bit of a no-brainer.

If you meant "assault weapon", though, that is a fair point. Handguns are something that should be treated a lot more seriously than they are in the US.

THat's not exactly true. Some states do make things very hard to own an Assault Rifle. Others have no restrictions.

It is true that it you want a military assault rifle, something capable of fully automatic fire and not semi automatic fire then costs and red tape do go up.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked