Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
China has 1/5 the murder rate we do and very few with guns. Do you really want to keep using that and an example? Also I bet if last weeks shooter had been armed with only a knife he may not have gotten in the building. He had to shoot out a tempered glass window to get in. And I bet if a teacher would lung at someone with a knife she would have had ten times the chance of slowing him down and or even holding him back until other could jump him.Maybe even is all he could get was a pump shot gun, but with a 30 rd mag 223 she was a fish in a barrel. Sorry your logic does not stand up to common sense.
I was simply pointing out that in 2010 a man in China killed almost 20 kids with a knife in the same amount of time as the sicko in CT did with a gun.
This was a different incident than the stabbing in China last week that injured about 20 kids. China has had a rash of mass standings.
According to Russia's gun laws, Russian citizens can buy smoothbore shotguns, such as, for example Saiga 12, gas pistols, or revolvers shooting rubber bullets. Safe use of one of the above weapons for five years allows purchase of a rifle or carbine.
In Moscow alone, some 400,000 people legally keep 470,000 weapons
Quote:
Oh really we don't...?
We don't have Mexican Drug Cartels pushing into the South West?
We don't have ATF agents allowing guns to be trafficked to those same cartels?
We don't have 500 murders+ per year in Chicago alone, what this is girl scouts fighting over cookies?
Right, we do NOT. Our issues with corruption are NOTHING compared to Russia. None of your examples have anything to do with police corruption. The murder rate in Chicago has been cut to half.
Quote:
No the trend was downwards even before the ban, look at the graph, here are the figures as delta's 1991 9.8/100,000 (base), 1992 -0.5/100,000 probably an anomaly, 1993 +0.2/100,000 or this one was an anomaly, 1994 -0.5/100,000, then looking at the end (if there was a suppressive effect, you'd expect to see some bounce back) there is no meaningful bounce back, indeed the downward trend stalls in 2000 when the AWB was in full effect
My whole point was to say we do not know if the ban had anything to do with the decline, and I said that the spike in violence before the ban was fueled by the crack epidemic, not by presence of guns.
It sounds like you like to argue just for the sake of arguing, because you just keep jammering on, and you don't even realize I oppose gun bans.
The AZ shooter was stopped because he had to reload. He had a 33rd mag. What if he only had 10 rds? Maybe some people would still be with us. There were two CCW holders carrying that day and they did not stop the shooter and almost shot each other.
I have hunted birds and if I have a large mag with a semi auto I can shoot much more and kill much more than if I had any other kind of weapon. A pump with a limit of 5 rounds I can not hold people still from running away while at the same time reloading. Its just not possible. So your argument is just not going to hold water.
I may be incorrect, but I believe his weapon jammed. Thank God for product failure.
And I agree with your points. They're so obvious I cannot understand the obfuscation by the gun advocates.
Amazing, isn't it? The libs simply ignore the data that shows gun control does nothing to deter crime at all. Why? It does not fit thier political agenda, therefore they choose to ignore these "inconvenient truths".
I oppose bans in US. You are using some kids homework for "evidence" and it makes you look like a fool.
"One piece of this puzzle is the national rate of firearm-related murders, which is charted above. The United States has by far the highest per capita rate of all developed countries. According to data compiled by the United Nations, the United States has four times as many gun-related homicides per capita as do Turkey and Switzerland, which are tied for third. The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average for all other countries on this chart. That means that Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country."
Since actual, factual data shows that gun control does not reduce crime (particularly murder rates), why in the world does anyone advocate gun control? Is this another one of those irrational, emotional repsonses to promote something ineffectual and potentially detrimental out of "fairness"?
Acting irrationally to an outside stimulus is puerile and accomplishes nothing. If one is going to undertake a major endeavor, make sure that the data shows that action produces the desired goal!
Again you ignore all the data that shows strict regulation on guns can and does work. The full auto or 1934 gun act strictly regulated full auto weapons. Since then there have been very few to no crimes committed by legal full auto guns.
Australia has shown that there were 13 mass shootings before the gun ban and non after. You ignore what you don't want to hear with your little brain.
You are an OCD over emotional person that uses the Texas sharp shooter fallacy to show what you want to show.
So do you feel better when someone is killed by a semi-auto vs full auto weapon?
I am not ignoring anything.
The purpose of "gun control" is to deter crime. Correct? When the data shows it does not deter crime (THIS IS THE FACTUAL DATA), there is no point in enacting gun control. It makes no sense and is the epitomy of idiocy.
PS- full auto weapons are legal in most states. Handguns are most often used in crimes, not semi-auto rifles. Even handgun laws do nothing to deter violent crime.
You are trying to argue against facts with irrlevent anecdotes. If the facts show that "gun control" does not deter crime, why do you want gun control?
Gun control works wherever it is applied properly.
Australia...
The results are hard to argue with. According to a Harvard University study, 13 gun massacres (in which four or more people died) occurred in the 18 years before the law was enacted. In the 16 years since there has been none. Zero.
The overall firearm homicide rate dropped from 0.43 per 100,000 in the seven years before the law to 0.25 in the seven years after. By 2009, the rate had dropped further, to just 0.1 per 100,000, or one per million. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...rthur/1778519/
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
