I'm also more likely to cut myself if I run with knives. I'm also more likely to drown the more I swim. So what? Your "science" misses the point, so you also miss the point. Reality and common sense have to prevail here. Don't worry about it. You're safe over there in jolly old england.
Goddamn
- Thread starter Greg_L
- Start date
- Status
I'm also more likely to cut myself if I run with knives. I'm also more likely to drown the more I swim. So what? Your "science" misses the point, so you also miss the point. Reality and common sense have to prevail here. Don't worry about it. You're safe over there in jolly old england.
jimistone
long standing member
You're getting an out of context skewed statistic. It includes suicides. Most suicides are by gunshot. So, an honest statement would be "If you intend to commit suicide, and have a gun in the house, you're more likely to die by a self inflicted gunshot."
IBB uses this same bogus statemet over and over again.
JDOD
therecordingrebels.com
Yup, I think I am. I'm even safer in Wales! (although more likely to drown)
Although by your analogy - you'd be more likely to get stabbed if you went around with a knife as some sort of self defence item as opposed to just cutting sandwiches! We could torture the analogy further talking about using pushing people in rivers as a method of self defence but that doesn't really make much sense.
Nothing you say in regards to this makes much sense because you don't actually live here or experience anything. That's not to say you can't read your studies and have an opinion about it, but your thoughts and opinions don't really hold much water. I totally agree with your distaste for our idiot gun culture. But your angles and agenda are misguided.
JDOD
therecordingrebels.com
Yeah, I agree. I don't have any direct experience of it. I've been to the US 4 times (California, Colorado and Florida) in the last 10 years and never come across any of what you'd call "gun culture". I just see clowns from the NRA making their "cold dead hands" speach on the news and it gets right on my tits.
jimistone
long standing member
Hillary and Obama have seized the opportunity and politicized this shooting to rachet up their anti gun rhetoric.
They have teams of armed body guards protecting them. It seems like the ones most opposed to the general public having guns are those in gated communities , and those protected by armed body guards
They have teams of armed body guards protecting them. It seems like the ones most opposed to the general public having guns are those in gated communities , and those protected by armed body guards
R
RAMI
Guest
Marriage is the leading cause of divorce.
DM60
Well-known member
You are just making that up. Where are your stats and references?
R
RAMI
Guest
I know for a fact that 100% of divorces are committed by married people.
But then again, 79.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Birth is the leading cause of death for all people.
Bubba po
Tiny Stonehenge Moment
It is my sincere belief that people shouldn't be able to walk around in possession of an offensive wife.
R
RAMI
Guest
I agree. Also, I think all wives should be concealed.
Wish
Never Sarcastic....Honest
That's also why they invented silencers.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Something the gun lobby never admit is that the reason for that spike in 2002/3 is that the murders in 1998 by a serial killer were discovered then and included in the stats for that year. The graph also doesn't make clear that, even with that spike, the murder rate was about a quarter of that in the USA.
That said, the debate on US gun control is getting boring. If 20 dead kids in Sandy Hook couldn't change things, a couple of journalists sure won't.
Look, if the majority of Americans favour gun ownership without the sort of controls every other developed country has, that's your decision. However, please don't use lies to justify that. Statements like "carrying a gun makes you safer" or "gun control doesn't work, look at Chicago" or the all time classic "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" don't stand up to even the most basic examination.
The truth is, you want the right to carry guns and you're willing to tolerate around 11,000 deaths a year (homicide, suicide, accidents and "undetermined") in return for your desire being fulfilled.
Greg's first post summed it up far more succinctly.
DM60
Well-known member
Not just a desire, but defending a right. You can't leave that out of the conversation.
You should though. That "right" is hotly contested, interpreted differently depending on agenda, and generally abused across the board. Like many things in our outdated constitution, it's original intent most likely doesn't actually apply to current society anymore. Not all, but many gun enthusiasts have an itchy trigger finger and CANNOT WAIT to be able to exercise their "right" to use their guns. George Zimmerman is a perfect example of that stupid "right to keep and bear arms" gone haywire.
R
RAMI
Guest
I understand the whole "Right to bear arms" thing, and I also understand that it has to do with the way the U.S. got their independence. So, the right to bear arms is based on using those arms against a corrupt government. But if that's the case, then 2 things:
1) What the fuck are you all waiting for? Your government has been corrupt for about 200 years.
B) Even if every single citizen had a gun to "protect them from a corrupt government", does anyone really believe the government still wouldn't be able to over-power the population? I mean, if it's really about protecting against a corrupt government and you hope to stand a chance, you'd each need a tank and a couple of nukes. I really think the whole "protect us from a corrupt government" argument went out of date when muskets went out of fashion. It sounds good on paper and it looks cool between quotation marks, but at this point, it's kind of stupid.
1) What the fuck are you all waiting for? Your government has been corrupt for about 200 years.
B) Even if every single citizen had a gun to "protect them from a corrupt government", does anyone really believe the government still wouldn't be able to over-power the population? I mean, if it's really about protecting against a corrupt government and you hope to stand a chance, you'd each need a tank and a couple of nukes. I really think the whole "protect us from a corrupt government" argument went out of date when muskets went out of fashion. It sounds good on paper and it looks cool between quotation marks, but at this point, it's kind of stupid.
Lol. Exactly. Every idiot redneck in the country combined are no match for one single US Air Force jet..
Double exactly. But the guntards use these tragic events to bolster their rhetoric. They say things like "if everyone is armed, then someone could have defended these people, or they could have defended themselves".
When getting my concealed carry permit, part of my "training" was telling me what I can and can't do as a carrier. One of the things I can do is defend against crime, like some kind of vigilante. If I see a violent crime happening, I can start blasting fuckers and just claim that I felt threatened and in danger by being in the vicinity of the crime happening. It's a gray area, but by meeting the requirements of my state to be a licensed carrier, I have some protections. The families of the people I kill may sue me, but legally I'd probably walk away no problem, although there would likely be a huge financial cost.
In reality, I'd stay the fuck out of it. Unless it's something truly heinous happening right in front of me, I'm getting the fuck out of there. It aint my problem until it's actually my problem. I'm saving my bullets.
- Status