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.
That's not a proper reading of the graphs. You're just bending the data to fit your opinion.
You cannot say "increased gun ownership = decreased homicides". All you can say is that more people own guns, and there are a lot fewer homicides. But there is no proven link between the two.
You are saying there is causation between the two, when in reality, there are so many confounding factors.
Such as.... better law enforcement is taking the criminals off the street before they have a chance to commit gun violence. Or people being more vigilant; more witnesses and ubiquity of cameras make criminals think twice about gun violence. Or more people developing a conscience, or being more educated.
200 years ago, people were dumb and would resolve every conflict with a shootout.
You cannot deny this.... theoretically if guns did not exist, we would have zero gun violence.
We would have knife and fist violence instead.
To the bold, it is NOT saying that. It is saying that there are more guns per people in the US, but it says nothing about overall ownership. It is certainly possible that those guns have gone to a small subset of the population, which seriously changes the interpretation of that figure.
I agree with the rest of your post - I raised similar points earlier.
We will never agree. The war would of been lost, without the Soviet Union, without the UK ( including countries of the commonwealth ) and without the US.
The point you seem to miss, is that the US alone did not win the war. This is the stuff of Hollywood. The US played an important role, and could be said to have won the portion of the war in the Pacific, but Europe was not won by just the US.
The rest of the world, that participated in those two world wars, are sick and tired of the mantra " we saved your asses " when in fact it is much more complicated than that. It was an allied effort, and the US taking credit for winning the war is historically inaccurate and the stuff of propaganda.
Of course we will not, we are polar opposites.
But facts are facts and without the United States the war would have been lost. This in no way is meant to diminish the contributions of other nations. But you can not win a war without food and supplies of which the United States supplied more than any other nation.
I don't really care what the rest of the world thinks. I'm sick and tired of them putting us down including yourself. A resident of Canada telling us how to run our country. As far as I'm concerned a lot of countries are a bunch of ingrates who will never acknowledge all of the good that the United States has accomplished. They're envious of our lifestyle and freedoms. They want to see us brought down to their level with all of this globalization and one world government BS. The UN is nothing more than a useless organization whose mission is to accomplish that goal.
He is actually being 100% factual. Europe was not "saved" by us during WW2. We helped immensely, especially with the amount of equipment and goods we supplied our allies with.
Even the Russian leaders agree that without the US they would have lost the war. Without the US, Britain would have lost the war very quickly.
You can interpret the word "saved" however you want. But if the US had not entered the war, Hitler would have been successful in taking over the UK and Russia.
BTW, 65% of our Lend-Lease supplies went to Britain. Without that, they would have been overrun quite soon.
According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease played a crucial role in winning the war:
On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.[24]
Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.[30]
Even the Russian leaders agree that without the US they would have lost the war. Without the US, Britain would have lost the war very quickly.
You can interpret the word "saved" however you want. But if the US had not entered the war, Hitler would have been successful in taking over the UK and Russia.
BTW, 65% of our Lend-Lease supplies went to Britain. Without that, they would have been overrun quite soon.
"Saved" implies being in a helpless state. Also taking the credit for winning the war comes across as an insult to the many people across Europe who made great sacrifices during the war. It was very much a group effort and should thought of that way. That said this thread is about our countries cancerous relationship with guns not the history of WW2.
These are all mass casualty incidents, in terms of one-on-one you are right. My conclusion is we don't need gun control, we need people control, starting with gang members. The challenge is when you put them in jail they do not reform, they become better criminals.
"Saved" implies being in a helpless state. Also taking the credit for winning the war comes across as an insult to the many people across Europe who made great sacrifices during the war. It was very much a group effort and should thought of that way. That said this thread is about our countries cancerous relationship with guns not the history of WW2.
I don't know? But it certainly seems to me that those who want to rid the country of the 2nd Amendment are the same as those who refuse to give this country credit for anything. No one's trying to diminish the great sacrifices that the Europeans made during the war. But it is an irrefutable fact that they could not have won the war without the United States.
I do confess that I started this with post #1137 while trying to prove a point about guns:
Quote:
Oh,I see you're from the UK? Again another foreigner telling us how to run our country. You've got your own problems, let alone sticking your nose in ours. We won our independence against you in 1776 and saved your ass during World War Two. With guess what? GUNS.
Sometimes one thing leads to another.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 10-04-2017 at 04:21 PM..
That's not a proper reading of the graphs. You're just bending the data to fit your opinion.
You cannot say "increased gun ownership = decreased homicides".
All you can say is that more people own guns, and there are a lot fewer homicides. But there is no proven link between the two.
Statistically, you have better odds to stop a home invader, car jacker, mugger, rapist, being armed, than you do talking them down...
I moved to Florida from upstate NY. Local news doesn't have reports of shootigs like the local news in NY did. Every night there was another shooting in the capital region. Mainly Schenectady Troy and Arbor Hill.
Odd how a state that is shall issue, vs a state that is may issue, reports less homicidal activity than one with restrictive gun laws...
Now Florida man on the other hand... that guy is always lurking. He's either calling the cops to report stolen pot plants, throwing alligators through a drive thru window for messing his order up, lighting a cigarette to mask the smell of a leaky propane tank, and the best... Valentines day reporting of a sexual affair amongst 2 married police officers...
I'm not making any of that up...
So statistically I am more at risk to Florida man antics than a homicide.
If those increase in guns are confined to a limited number of people, it doesn't really change the argument.
They're not, though. 41% of households have at least one gun. 59% of adults have friends who own guns. And the fact is that as gun ownership has increased, gun homicides have decreased rather significantly.
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.
