Us gun-debate: "youre an unbelievably stupid man arent you"

[Sniger]

rumble >> your signature is funnyh

[Christo]

"Gun bans work well for tyrants. They worked well for einstein, Stalin and Chairman Mao, to name just three."

Sounds legit.

Aha!

So it was Einstein all along..

[Angantyr]

The solution to gun violence is clear (Washington Post opinions)


The Real West - The Law From Behind The Tin Star (Youtube doc)

[Kafein]

The Real West - The Law From Behind The Tin Star (Youtube doc)

Ho god the comments of this one

[Sniger]

The solution to gun violence is clear (Washington Post opinions)

awesome article, well written. the logic is undeniable in my POW. but then again im just a simple dane living in a tiny country, maybe im over-protected and spoiled... hmms

for some reason noone brought up the movie Bowling for Columbine by michael moore or have i just missed it? the article made me remember it and i think the movie is more relevant than ever eventho its 11 years old.

[Christo]

Ho god the comments of this one

Quoting:

"LOL!!! WE ARE SIVILISED!! WE DONOT GRAB TWO SEMI AUTO PISOLS & AN ASULT RIFLE, KILL OUR MOTHER & GO TO THE LOCAL SCHOOL & MURDER 20 BABIES AND THEIRE TEACHERS!!!!! NOW THAT IS "CUTE!!!!" WINSTON CHURCHILL NEVER "BEGGED" FOR HELP. "WE" NEED HELP FROM "CUNTS" IN THE "usa" TO TAKE CARE OF "US???" YOU ARE A FUCKING INDREED IDIOT!!!!!! GET "YOUR" HISTORY RIGHT BEFORE YOU MAKE A COMMENT!! FUCKING DUMB ASS!!!!! HAAAAAA!!!! HAAAAAAAA!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!"

Holy mother of god.

[SMEGMAR]

"Gun bans work well for tyrants. They worked well for einstein, Stalin and Chairman Mao, to name just three."

Sounds legit.

Aha!

So it was Einstein all along..

The forums have a chat filter that replaces AD0LF H1TLER (without the numbers of course) with albert einstein.
Makes people look really dumb if it goes unchecked.

[Osiris]

"We've seen what happens when the bad guys have guns in places where guns are banned." <---- a lot less random school massacres and mass killings? Its like you people believe that without guns your going to be killed or something I live in the UK and ive never seen a gun in my life. (cept air rifles etc) I do not fear gun toting robbers and criminals when i walk the streets and i don't think i need a gun to feel safe O.o


"In Australia, after a 1996 ban on all automatic and semiautomatic weapons — a real ban, not like the one we enacted in 1994 with 600-plus exceptions — gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent over the next decade. The rate of suicide by firearm plummeted 65 percent. (Almost 20,000 Americans die each year using guns to commit suicide — a method that is much more successful than other forms of suicide.)"
Linkey

(click to show/hide)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-clear/2012/12/19/110a6f82-4a15-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html?tid=pm_pop

[Christo]

The forums have a chat filter that replaces AD0LF H1TLER (without the numbers of course) with albert einstein.
Makes people look really dumb if it goes unchecked.

That's the joke. 

[Rumblood]

Violent crimes in the U.K.

1,977,000 in a country of 61,000,000 (2012 latest data)

3240 per 100,000

Violent crimes in the U.S.

1,318,000 in a country of 311,000,000. (2009 latest available data)

423 per 100,000

While homicide rates are higher in the U.S (4.2 per 100,000 vs 1.2 per 100,000 in the U.K), you have a much higher incidence of violence. So while you are 3.5 times more likely to be killed in the U.S. during a violent crime, you are 7.5 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the U.K. in the first place. In the U.S., some of those deaths are the criminals themselves being shot by homeowners and business owners.

You really don't have a clear cut pedestal to stand on you know. Even the France/Australian example is misleading (as the author knew, 30x homicides works out to 6x when population differences are included). While homicides may have dropped by about half in Australia after 1996, total assaults doubled in that same time frame.

(All statistics above compiled by those countries governments)

With the said, we can all take this little ditty to heart.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Molly]

I rather get beaten up 4 times than shot even once...

[Overdriven]

Violent crimes in the U.K.

1,977,000 in a country of 61,000,000 (2012 latest data)

3240 per 100,000

Violent crimes in the U.S.

1,318,000 in a country of 311,000,000. (2009 latest available data)

423 per 100,000

While homicide rates are higher in the U.S (4.2 per 100,000 vs 1.2 per 100,000 in the U.K), you have a much higher incidence of violence. So while you are 3.5 times more likely to be killed in the U.S. during a violent crime, you are 7.5 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the U.K. in the first place. In the U.S., some of those deaths are the criminals themselves being shot by homeowners and business owners.

You really don't have a clear cut pedestal to stand on you know. Even the France/Australian example is misleading (as the author knew, 30x homicides works out to 6x when population differences are included). While homicides may have dropped by about half in Australia after 1996, total assaults doubled in that same time frame.

(All statistics above compiled by those countries governments)

With the said, we can all take this little ditty to heart.

Most of that probably encompasses the drunken football fans beating each other up twice a week at pubs.

Regardless, as benkei pointed out, I'd much rather get beaten up frequently than be shot/killed so meh. Those stats mean little to me as to me it's the homicide that counts.

[isatis]

Violent crimes in the U.K.

1,977,000 in a country of 61,000,000 (2012 latest data)

3240 per 100,000

Violent crimes in the U.S.

1,318,000 in a country of 311,000,000. (2009 latest available data)

423 per 100,000

While homicide rates are higher in the U.S (4.2 per 100,000 vs 1.2 per 100,000 in the U.K), you have a much higher incidence of violence. So while you are 3.5 times more likely to be killed in the U.S. during a violent crime, you are 7.5 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the U.K. in the first place. In the U.S., some of those deaths are the criminals themselves being shot by homeowners and business owners.

If I recall right, those number can't be compared because USA definition of ''violent'' crime only consist of aggravated assault (Canada, which has pretty much the criminal code of UK, include much morel ittle assault like those with no wep and with no major injury, bar fight per exemple)

Personnaly i find it rather strange to walk in USa and see that much people with gun... I don't understand this mentality at all! But maybe it's my little nordic super security socialist Quebec that biaise me. And even if i open up all my mind to go in the mentality of super dangerous country I still don't understand why army gun are allowed to be sold...

[Rumblood]

Regardless, as benkei pointed out, I'd much rather get beaten up frequently than be shot/killed so meh. Those stats mean little to me as to me it's the homicide that counts.

3.2% versus .42%% chance of being a victim? Or .0042% vs .0012% of being shot. I'd skip that 3.2% right over. Especially when I would be infinitely more likely to have a gun as a law abiding citizen for that .42% chance of violence as opposed to 0% chance as a law abiding citizen where guns are banned. Those 4.2 per 100,000 in the U.S. include the criminals being shot, yours don't.

[Grumbs]

This was pretty cringworthy to watch. When all you can do is insult rather than debate you all ready lost really, and the other guy took it quite well. Saying that though I would much rather live in a country like UK with strict gun control laws, but its different in the US. You have to consider the situation as it is now rather than like you can wave a wand and revert 100's of years of laws and ingrained culture. Ridiculous to think you can have teachers carrying guns though, any other guy than Piers Morgan probably could have handled that way better and came out on top given the ideas the other guy came up with. Kids would have even more reason to stash guns in school, or you would have instances were kids get shot by teachers, or teachers using guns as a threat or to act like police rather than teachers, and then you would get inevitable accidents caused by kids getting hold of the guns.

Its a shitty situation really. You would have to go pretty hardcore towards gun control for it to make a dent and actually help the situation, otherwise it might just put innocent people at more risk. I'd hate to live in a place were there are guns everywhere, but if I did i'd want access to one too. In terms of schools, I don't think its worth the extra risks by arming teachers. Main way to deter shootings in schools is to not sensationalise it and to not make celebrities out of the murderers. Educating people about proper storage of guns might help, and maybe some limit on the type of weapons freely sold or the ammo types