Do guns protect you, or simply cause violence? (Page 54) ghostgeek: A society that is comatose on drugs would surely be a good thing. Just as the elderly are sedated, for their own and everybody else's good, to have the young in a state of drug induced paralysis would be a boon for society. Crime would become nonexistent.  TheSouthernGent: I see that the last time I was here was 5 months ago. So let me tell ya'll this little story. I was in Vegas a few years back and a guy was bragging on how great his pool stick was and was willing to bet $1,000 it could bet anyone there. Well i threw a 1,000 down on the table and placed my stick on the money and then asked him to cover the bet and place his stick on the table and lets see who stick can bet who's. Well he grabbed his money up and stick and said I was crazy but I informed him that He was the one that said his pool stick could bet any there and I proved him a liar since His stick couldn't do any thing with out the guy playing with the stick. Same goes for guns I will place mine on the table an see if it would shot anyone in the room. Well unless a person has the gun in his hand and pulls the trigger no body gets killed so removing guns from people does not stop the killings. Put the people who are doing the killing in jail for the rest of their life and the rest of us will live a longer and more productive life.... ghostgeek: Perhaps we should remember what the title of this thread is: Do guns protect you, or simply cause violence? OK, as many will know, guns are tightly controlled in the UK and there has so far been no mass shootings reported in the country. In America, where guns are widely available, there have been 61 mass shootings in 2016, with 91 dead and 216 injured, before an incident yesterday. Well, yesterday, March 9, five more people lost their lives in the US state of Pennsylvania. Two gunmen ambushed a backyard party, killing five and injuring three. Four of those killed, and one of the injured, were women. The gunmen, quite naturally, ran away and are still at large. Anybody care to explain why I shouldn't draw the obvious conclusion from the above figures, that guns lead to shootings.  LiptonCambell: >>>Anybody care to explain why I shouldn't draw the obvious conclusion from the above figures, that guns lead to shootings. Lmao are you serious? Yes, guns lead to shootings. And cars lead to car accidents, and water leads to drownings, and food leads to obesity. The question isn't "Do guns cause shootings" but rather "Does disarmament create a safer or more dangerous society" I mean, come on- guns shoot. Thats what they do. Asking "Do guns lead to shootings" is so stupid it's unbelievable you think that's a valid question to ask.... One things for certain- cat ownership doesn't lead to shootings. Or netflix accounts. Or shaving your head, or painting your walls taupe, or ordering a baconator combo at Wendys on a Wednesday night during a rainstorm while wearing a swimsuit. None of those things "lead to shootings" >>>OK, as many will know, guns are tightly controlled in the UK and there has so far been no mass shootings reported in the country. Not true. Also, misleading. There have been mass shootings since the 1996 handgun ban in England. For example, in 2010, there was one of the deadliest mass shooting in your countries history. Are you honestly whitewashing your nations history to push a political agenda? You're pretending like your country doesn't have mass shootings because of this law, but the law was passed, and low and behold, you still have mass shootings. Your solution? Pretend it never happened. Classy. Also, misleading- gun crime, naturally, has gone down- but murders and homicides have gone up, and stayed up. The fact remains, and yet again you choose to pretend like it's not true, that there was less people being murdered when they had access to handguns than when they didn't. How can you honestly suggest you want a honest and truthful debate on the safety of firearms and whether disarmament works as a means to keeping people safe, when you completely ignore the fact that, since the gun ban, people are LESS SAFE. It is a legitimate fact that you are more likely to be murdered following the gun ban in the United Kingdom than prior to it. THAT is, briefly, why you shouldn't draw such a conclusion. Because such a conclusion is based on half the story, misleading data, and outright lies. (Edited by LiptonCambell) ghostgeek: Letting go with that lot must have come as quite a relief, Lipton. Glad I could be of some help. ghostgeek: The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there's substantial evidence that where there are more guns, there are more homicides. If guns are available, it is more likely that a violent dispute will become a deadly one, and that a criminal with the intent to kill can find the means to do so. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states, and it's also true when you take into account factors such as the age of the population, the number of people living in cities, and the overall violent crime rate. [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-the-key-things-to-know-about-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-america/ ] LiptonCambell: Well lets take a peak at your article you're referencing. Hmm yes, nice cherry picking. Lets look at some of the other stats it presents; ---Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall, but nearly a third of households still have a gun.--- So there are more mass shootings done with LESS guns? Imagine that. ---America is an unusually violent country. But we're not as violent as we used to be.---- Gun Crime is going down in America, as homicide rates go up in countries that ban guns, like the UK? Hmmm.... ---The South is the most violent region in the United States.--- What? You mean America has large scale immigration in the South, creating cultural and racial tension and wage disparaging, and they also have a violence problem? You're telling me you cherry picked through all that, ignored ALL the data, and zoned in only on things that support your position, rather than having a broader understanding of the issue? mind blown. ghostgeek: You can't shoot somebody if you don't have a gun. Even the Pope can't get round that one. ghostgeek: The Japanese seem to have got pretty close. Are you saying the Americans couldn't do the same? ghostgeek: As you yourself have pointed out, gun ownership in America is in long term decline. Why is it impossible to think, therefore, that this trend could translate into the political will to control, and even eliminate, guns? LiptonCambell: >>>Are you saying the Americans couldn't do the same? Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. And if we're going to compare America to other countries, then we can pretty much throw out your above data. It's based solely on the United States- but if you want to compare other countries, then i have little doubt it'll paint a different pictures. >>>. Why is it impossible to think, therefore, that this trend could translate into the political will to control, and even eliminate, guns? Because it's voluntary? Seriously, why is this so hard to understand....People choosing to go without guns is not at all remotely close to the government closing hundreds of thousands of gun stores, gun mills, and going door to door collecting peoples guns. ghostgeek: Clinton gets elected and gun control becomes a political reality. Old white males in the back of beyond may object, but they are a dying breed. Just have a little faith in your big neighbour to the south.  calybonos: If Jesus or Allah appears to someone in a piece of toast or a kebab, and tells them to go shoot up a mall, who are we to argue with divine intervention? Yeee haw, Allah Hafiz, Shama lama ding dong, and pass the ammunition. ghostgeek: Buy some Kevlar body armour and drive around in an armoured Humvee. Personal protection without the distraction of a six shooter parked next to your willy. | Politics Chat Room 80 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
