FYI- did u know 28 Americans die daily due to gun violence

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NEXT

RockyMTNClimber Sysops alert, could we get this guy off our board? 4/27/2009 10:10:09 AM

Yes, what they typically do is expand the definition of 'children' to include 18 year old and below. Thus you capture the statistics for the majority of gang bangers who are a huge chunk of the firearm related deaths in this country as they fight over drug dealing turf. This is simply deceptive and dishonest. Hell, they could include death rates for 18 old soldiers as well if they really wanted to inflate things I suppose and it would be equally honest.

Yeah screw them, they aren't real children whose deaths we care about because they aren't nice white, middle class all American kids. Never mind that many of them have never met their fathers, that their mothers are crack whores and that they have never had any example set beyond that which the gangs provide. That makes no difference because we are libertarian's and we just "got it" when it comes to how to live a wholesome life. Our environment and upbringing had nothing to do with it so we don't even need to be grateful that we grew up under decent circumstances.

Since these nigger and spic kids are so useless we'll just keep letting them have cheap guns to kill each other off because we don't really give a shit about them. We definately don't care enough to consider measures which might make it harder for them to get guns in the first place. That might make it a little bit harder and expensive for for us to get a guns too and God Dammit, we might only have enough money left over to get a 50 inch plasma TV rather than that 63 inch one that we really wanted or God forbid we might only be able to afford a 6 cylinder vehicle rather than 8! We can't have good folk sitting their fat arses in front of a substandard telly or in an under-powered pussymobile that for the sake of a 16 year old "Gangbanger's" life now can we!

The Australia board doesn't put up with this crap from you, we aren't going to here either. Sysops will boot your foul mouth for this behavior. I don't care what you say or do at home, in here you will be respectful . Fracking ignorant twit.

Quote Reply

enter_space_disco buzzard 4/27/2009 4:17:04 PM

(My quote)

Let's examine my quote taken from an article.

"In 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, guns were used in the murders of 1285 children and another 120 were killed in firearm accidents. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention says the rate of firearm deaths of children under 15 is almost 12 times greater in the US than in 25 other industrialised nations." h**p://www.smh.com.au/news/world/when-boys-and-guns-come-out-to-play-133/2007/06/01/1180205513585.html The first sentence does not give an age range. The reporter does not quote an age range, but from the website you quoted, h**p://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html , the age range used by him seems to be 0 to 18 years. Homicide with firearm from the CDC website is 1291, and accidents come out to 121. The CDC website gives a proviso that it's figures might not correspond to figures used by other authorities, and that it's figures are adjusted yearly. "During 1989-1995, annual counts of deaths prepared by some States differ from those of NCHS. Differences between State and NCHS counts are generally concentrated among selected causes of death, principally Symptoms, signs, and ill-defined conditions (ICD-9 Nos. 780-799) and external causes (homicides, suicides and unintentional injuries). These differences occurred mainly because NCHS did not receive changes resulting from amended records. Affected States are as follows: Alaska, 1989-1995; Alabama, 1991-1992; Hawaii, 1991; New Jersey, 1991-1993." h**p://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/aboutmrt.htm On the same page , "Updates to the data presented on these pages will occur annually". (The CDC website uses data tapes provided by the NHCS)

The author may have been using an earlier version of statistics from the same website, or from another authority, but the differences in the figures are neither here nor there.

(Your then said)
"Yes, what they typically do is expand the definition of 'children' to include 18 year old and below. Thus you capture the statistics for the majority of gang bangers who are a huge chunk of the firearm related deaths in this country as they fight over drug dealing turf."

Gang bangers are not a huge chunk of firearm related deaths. Gang related homicides amounted to 955 deaths in 2005, only 6% of total homicides h**p://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/h... Click on the graph to drill down to exact figures.

(My quote)
As you have said, "For the U.S. in 2004, the total number of firearm related deaths of children ages 0-15 is 565. Of these, there were 73 accidental deaths." This seems to support the argument in the second sentence from the artice I mentioned. "The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention says the rate of firearm deaths of children under 15 is almost 12 times greater in the US than in 25 other industrialised nations" . This is cited from h**p://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5214.pdf page 11, (page 13 of 24 on pdf reader).

(Your response)

"Ok. So? We knew that there is a higher rate of homicide in this country than in others."

Caused by too many guns. Much easier to kill with a gun. 67% of US homicides involve a gun. h**p://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/h... In Australia, the figure is much less, about 16%, and we have a lower rate of murder because of it.

Your response

"I can cite other nations which have strong gun control and higher rates of homicide than we do."

Third World nations? Russia? (A Second World nation with nuclear weapons)

" I can cite areas in the U.S. with strict gun laws and high crime rates."

Again, no national uniform laws.

"You better find an actual case where passing a gun law reduced crime or you are just blowing smoke. You will have a fun time doing it because it doesn't ex

Quote Reply

buzzard 4/27/2009 4:28:02 PM

I could go down the list of logical fallacies you are relying on here if you like, but the effort would likely be a waste of time since you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of common sense.

However the best argument you are capable of refuting with appears to be an appeal to authority, but I'm not buying. If the authority has an agenda and is using flawed methodology (which is evident if you'd use common sense), then it doesn't make a convincing argument.

You are, to put it simply, an animist. You believe that either:

A) Firearms are mind control devices which cause people to perform violent acts

B) You believe that the gun itself causes crime somehow with an inherent motive force.

Either way this is a pretty pathetic and primitive superstition. In the real world, guns are inanimate objects. They don't actually do anything by themselves. People do things for good or for ill no matter what tools they choose for the job.

Now the difference between me and you is that when I see a country in which citizens are allowed to own guns, I see a place where people are trusted to be responsible. You, OTOH, see a bunch of potential mass murderers. I'd hate to live in your world of paranoia.

It is often said that in a civilized nation, guns are controlled. It is justified on the premise that the weapons make people too dangerous. However, how could a nation be civilized if the only thing which separates it from barbarism is the government keeping them disarmed? Everyone in one of these 'civilized' nations is just a simmering cauldron waiting to boil over if exposed to the evils of a firearm? What a truly sad view of the world. It's amazing you can trust people moving around in several tons of dangerous steel vehicle capable of crushing you flat. Do you even leave your home?

Quote Reply

enter_space_disco RockyMTNClimber 4/27/2009 4:54:07 PM

Aussiegunner is making a valid point

I think there is an undercurrent of racism in at least some parts of US society which does not regard black on black, hispanic on hispanic or hispanic on black violence seriously. They are just written off.

n a previous post, buzzard wrote off the inclusion of late teens because he thought they were just gang bangers who made up the majority of total homicides in the US (false...see my previous post), implying that their deaths did not matter at all in the overall scheme of things.

He has also written off women who are facing violent partners, implying that they were doomed one way or another.

And he's also written off people who live in poor or crime ridden neighbourhoods. Buzzard says "Say you have a bad neighborhood where everyone owns a gun for self protection. Will it come as a shocker that a murder victim will have a gun in their house?" Accoding to buzzard, we should just throw up our hands and consign the people living in these neighbourhoods to danger from gun violence.

The way buzzard is going, he might as well write off school massacres (hormones), arguments (no sympathy for drunks) massacres at work (caused by depressed and deranged people), leaving him with a safe United States, where there is hardly any violence because we've explained away the anomalies.

Just because aussigunner has touched a raw but real nerve, does not mean he should be thrown off.

Just because you are losing the argument, does not mean you should have him kicked out. You are trying to censor him, and making a mockery of your own Constitution.

Stop your jibber jabber.

Quote Reply

buzzard 4/27/2009 4:59:54 PM

Calling me a racist due to a completely unfounded assertion is winning the argument? Good lord you live in a strange world.

You two are both so out of touch that you don't realize you aren't even still in the argument. Your continued persistence in shouting 'neener neener' in the face of arguments you can't refute is not winning an argument. Crying racism is a sure sign you folks haven't found a way to win on the basis of logic or evidence. The victim card (which you seem to be pulling in spades), is the sure sign of someone who can't win an argument.

How about this, can I call you a racist because you assume that all those dark skinned fellows are too irresponsible to own guns altogether?

Oh, and you might want to revise thinking about color since you don't even know if I'm white. That Venezuelan passport I've got stuffed away somewhere might argue your point amigo.

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Racism is ugly. Justifying it is unexcuseable. 4/27/2009 5:08:31 PM

Aussiegunner is making a valid point

Aussiegunner is failing in this conversation so he begins uttering offensive racist comments. He is a weak little wanker as he has shown and deserves to be removed from these boards. He is not well liked on the Aussie board here on SP so he crawls around on our side. He is a sad little twit who needs to go away.

I utterly reject the statement that any class of US society is "written off". Specific individuals are written off and indeed are sent to prison. That specific person committed a crime and so after proper processes is in jail (written off). One hopes he/she will return to society as a member but that is up to them.

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Disco re Buzzards comments 4/27/2009 5:21:58 PM

Disco,
Accoding to buzzard, we should just throw up our hands and consign the people living in these neighborhoods to danger from gun violence.

Buzzard is of course correct. Guns in neighborhoods don't create crimes or crime. People do. Some people are worse than others but that has nothing to do about race. Get that. We have already documented many times here that in fact there are social benefits to an armed society, be it in city to city comparisons, and or state to state comparisons here in the US. We have seen consistently that the very places with the highest regulation of firearms are the ones with most of the gun crimes. This is because you leave the criminal armed while legally declaring the victim with no possible defense This is not arguable. Your assumption of your own country's policies were proven wrong here. We see crimes went up not down. We saw it again in the US and in the UK. Canada even had a spike in gun crimes when they instituted new restrictions several years ago. All fact, all documented, all ignored by the gun control cult.

The facts upon which you base your opinion on this topic are completely false. Demonstrated false.

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Disco, how about the whole story? 4/27/2009 5:37:45 PM

Why then did your homicide rates go up for over 7 years after your ban? Your homicide rates had been trending down until the ban. Why do you choose to ignore this information?

Also, please explain the data posted from your Aussie Gov't sources:

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there was a slight drop in the percent of murders committed with a firearm between 2001 and 2007 (16.0% and 13.4%, respectively). However, the percentage was highest in 2006 (16.3%) and remains higher than the low of 8.9% in 2005. There is no difference in the use of a firearm in robbery: Guns were used in 6.4% of all robberies in both 2001 and 2007.

In 2002?five years after enacting its gun ban?the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime: ?The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued its declining trend since 1969.?

Even the head of Australia?s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, acknowledged that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards. I don't think anyone really understands why. A lot of people assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific, convincing evidence ?

There has been a more specific ? problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws.

Weatherburn also acknowledged that the best crime measure consists of ?the arrest of those responsible.?

Moreover, Australia and America both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9% decrease; without a gun ban, America?s rate dropped 31.7%.

Now for the rest of the story

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault?Australia?s equivalent term for rape?increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia?s violent crime rate rose 42.2%. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8%: rape dropped 19.2%; robbery decreased 33.2%; aggravated assault dropped 32.2%. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women (whom ABC reports are arming themselves at record rates because of safety concerns):

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 4/28/2009 12:53:01 AM

Thank you for repeating that, Rocky--guns don't kill people, people kill people. Apparently our friends Down Under believe otherwise.

The only way your gun kills people without your knowledge and help is if its name is Megatron.

Quote Reply

EvilFishy 4/28/2009 1:12:17 AM

---Aussiegunneragain ---If you are licensed, the gun is registered---

I said a licensed professional.

-Real Estate (former life)

-Architecture

Which of these require registry of firearms? The short answer is: NONE.

Which of these required disclosure of any and every arrest/conviction? BOTH.

---Aussiegunneragain ---and it isn't the type of weapon that you can slaughter a whole bunch of people with if you ever blow a fuze then I don't support the Government being able to do that.---

How many people do you figure I can slaughter in an SUV were I to blow a fuse?

---Aussiegunneragain ---By all means buy a .38 special and feel safe as far as I'm concerned, they look better than your semi-auto anyway.---
How about a bobcat?

How about heavy machinery?

Did you know there was a fellow who took earth moving equipment, welded steel plates around the cab, rigged up a flame thrower, and went on a killing rampage?

Should earth moving equipment and super soakers be outlawed?

Did you know there was a fellow who loaded a bunch of fertilizer into a semi and blew a lot of people away within a fraction of a second?

Should semi trucks and farming be outlawed?

Your logic is specious at best.

Do you know I can take a trip down to home depot and with $1,000 and with a bunch of cooking and construction equipment, create devices that can kill hundreds of people?

Just because I can does not mean I will and to think YOU or anybody else can remove the ABILITY for another human being to take the life of one or more human beings shows a level of ignorance and naiveté on a level not found in adolescents.

Guns do not kill people.

Guns do not rob banks.

Guns do not rape people.

Guns do not steal cars.

If guns could do all of these things, we would throw the GUN IN JAIL rather than the ****-tard who used the tool to commit the crime.

Guns do not kill people; PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NEXT