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.
At first, I already felt the bias when reading the table of contents.
They also say that by 2000, the UK surpassed the US as one of the most violent developed nations. No stat that I can find supports that.
"The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa." UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph
LOL, you arent 3 for 3, none of those say a person is exempt if it is a private road, heck the Florida one says iany road within the state which directly contradicts your claim.
I'm trying very hard to be civil here, because you obviously don't have any experience with the law in general, much less laws pertaining to transportation.
My business is related to regulatory compliance in the transportation industry. That means that being able to find and interpret these laws is what I get paid to do. I'm not a lawyer, but looking at the growth of my business since I started it over five years ago, I'd have to say that there are plenty of people who pay me good money for the services I provide that are satisfied that I know what I'm talking about. If I didn't, I wouldn't have any customers. Simple as that.
You're wrong. I'm sorry if you don't want to read that, but you simply are, and no amount of standing your ground on this is going to change that fact. It's starting to get embarrassing.
Again, from the Florida statute (which you claim contradicts my position):
Quote:
... a motor vehicle that is operated or driven on the roads of this state ...
"[T]he roads of this state" means state owned or maintained roads. City streets are included, because they get at least a portion of their funding from the state.
You certainly don't have to believe me if you don't want to, although at this point, it'd be just plain silly not to. Ask your attorney. Search the web. Or do nothing - I really don't care. But you're wrong about this, generally speaking. I can't say that I've looked into the laws surrounding this exact situation in all 50 states, but I spot checked three, and I know that it's the same deal in California (spent the first 36 years of my life there and at various times I had cars that were unregistered). If you consider the reasons why a state would require that a car is registered, it doesn't even pass the common sense test to force people to register vehicles that aren't going to be driven in public.
So do what you want and believe what you want, but I can say with 100% certainty that in the states mentioned, you are wrong, and if I were to continue researching in other states, I would venture to guess that the result would be the same pretty much everywhere.
This will be my last post on this tangent. DM if you think you've earned that $100.
"The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa." UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph
Each country has a different definition of "violent crime", the UK has a very broad definition that includes burglary, car theft and domestic violence among others that the US does not consider violent.
Well, see, the gun-control nuts believe that owning a gun is a violent crime, and that the Harvard research failed to include this particular crime in its quantum.
They will start to think that Harvard is a bastion on conservatives and just dismiss it.
Guns make suicide far easier. You really think that Montana's suicide rate (leads the nation) has nothing to do with guns, even though guns are the primary cause of those suicides?
If Montana didn't have as many guns, you bet less people would of killed themselves. That means to prevent suicides you restrict guns.
MTSilvertip did a great job explaining the high suicide rate in MT. I feel bad for them but it's their life and their choice. Ban guns and the sale of nylon rope from Lowes will increase. Ban the sale of long rope and razor blade sales will increase. People who want to end it all will find a way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
1 - no source. .
2 - your chance of being in a violent crime is .000047% much less than the .1% of accident you noted above
Here is a source NOT from the top of your head. . .and guess what - the facts don't back up the negligence note (storage manner was not correlated with change in safety)
"Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."
Your link is to a study of violent DEATH. Mine was a study of just violence that may or may not end in death. I don't want to just prevent my own death, I want to prevent injury to myself as well as others in my family.
In the state of MS, if you enter my house (garage or even car) without authorization and I am also in the house (garage or car) then by law I assume you are there to inflict violence upon me. I do not have to ask your purpose. I do not have to ask you to leave. I do have to account for all other authorized occupants before I pull the trigger. The link cites exact law as well as giving a summary. The Castle Doctrine: What is it and does it apply to my little house? | Mississippi Gun News
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
No source, your just making this up. Real source up above, and doesn't back you up
It was a poor job of explaining myself. You used the term "gun accident". An accident only happens if there is a mechanical failure of the gun. I gave an example of what a lot of people say are accidents when in fact it was negligence. Negligence should be prosecuted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
The risk of dying in a home fire was significantly higher when we didn't have smoke detectors / did not require them by law. To argue that dying in a fire isn't risky without a smoke detector is pretty stupid, since every home is required to have one.
Required by whom? Is someone coming to my house to guarantee it? No. It had to pass inspection when it was built. Same way the door locks did. I switched them out for double sided dead bolts about 2 hours after moving in. It's against code but I haven't been ticketed in the 12 years I have lived here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
Ever heard of cherry picking fallacy? Thats why I sourced (above). You can't just take individual events and make any conclusion as to their actual impact. You could of cherry picked 100 people who was 92 years old and smoked and told us that smoking makes you live to 92
Posted just to show that there are documented cases (more every day) of people using guns responsibly to protect themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
That is why we do research. . . (such as sourced above).
The great thing about gun nuts are though.. science/research. thats for those damn liberals and their ivory towers. Science is created by satan to take our guns!
Wow. Are you actually saying that I don't believe in science. Let's see, there's physics (and a lot of it) involved in ballistic calculations. But since we are discussing the study you linked to, we can stay on that topic. Your referenced study is on DEATH. As I stated earlier, I also care about violence and preventing it from happening to me. That violence includes someone else's gun, knife, hammer or even fists. You seem to have cherry picked a study with results to your liking and used it as part of your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
1 - an individual experience means nothing (see above)
It means everything to me. My gun is my insurance policy. I hope to NEVER use it. In the rare case I have to, I will have it with me. As far as having it taken from me and used against me, I'm willing to live (or die) with that chance. Accidents? Again, they are so rare that they do not enter into my risk/reward calculations. Carrying a gun for me is like carrying my wallet or car keys. When I get dressed, I put on my pants, fill my pockets (money in my front left, keys in my front right, knife clipped in my front right, wallet in my back right) and holster my pistol in an inside-the-waistband holster. There is a round in the chamber and it does not have a traditional safety switch. I go through my day to day activities until I get undressed for bed. The gun is placed on the floor by my clothes and shoes (in case I have to get up and get out quickly) about 2 feet from the bed.
MTSilvertip did a great job explaining the high suicide rate in MT. I feel bad for them but it's their life and their choice. Ban guns and the sale of nylon rope from Lowes will increase. Ban the sale of long rope and razor blade sales will increase. People who want to end it all will find a way.
But suicide by gun is the gun's fault; suicide by role is because the person wants to die. Big difference!!!
Each country has a different definition of "violent crime", the UK has a very broad definition that includes burglary, car theft and domestic violence among others that the US does not consider violent.
Burglary and car theft are not considered violent crimes in the UK, that's false. Violent crime figures come from stats generated by persons charged with offenses, so while assault is very broad, not all who have technically broken the assault laws will be charged, so that's a red herring. For instance stepping on someone's toe by accident in the UK is technically assault, but no one would ever be charged with it, nor convicted. Domestic violence is also considered a violent crime in the US.
In most cases common assaults are only charged under one of two circumstances...
There is an injury requiring medical attention
The person assaulted presses charges
unless either of these conditions apply the police will likely ignore it.
Signed, and Ex-Pat Brit who tends to agree that the UK is predominantly more violent than the US, that's not to say that the US doesn't have pockets of violence that exceed the UK, but predominantly the UK is in my opinion more violent.
These cities that are in the top 10 highest in the U.S. for violent crime are also in the top 10 states ranking of the Brady Campaign for having the strictest gun control. Guess the 3 states that got a 0 rating by the Brady Campaign, do not have any cities that rank in the top 25 highest for violent crime. Please explain why the states with the strictest gun control top the list for having the cities with the most violent crime? Please don't link me to a forum post are magazine article.
You don't know what you are talking about it.
Such as New Orleans?
Or Saint Louis?
Oh wait, don't forget Birmingham.
Anyway, some of the safest USA cities (San Diego, NYC, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Santa Ana) are in gun control states.
But it seems to be that it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain to conservatives that people who live in places with strict gun laws aren't spending their lives avoiding bullets.
Europe, Canada and Australia's cities have strict gun laws... guess what?
They haven't become war zones.
Conservatives' fears are just a product of their paranoia.
Last edited by italianuser; 12-17-2013 at 12:11 AM..
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.
