Jump to content

Only in America


The Fish
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh I'm sorry. I have misunderstood the rules, I thought we were allowed jut to make up shit about the opposition view?

 

By the way it's pretty fucking simple. Less guns = less gun deaths. But you don't want to lose your guns because, reasons.

 

Grow up.

I have made nothing up.

 

P.S. I don't own a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many lives does it have to save before it's worthwhile?

But how the fuck could you implement it, seriously. It's not about some aspirational dream it's about reality.

 

How could you draft the appropriate law, there are people who absolutely need guns, like my mate out in the sticks, upper Wisconsin/Michigan/Alaska etc. is not like the Cheviots, you don't have Health and Safety signs at work telling you that before descending to look down and check under the stairs outside the plant for fucking polar bears, out in the sticks over here, but you do in Alaska. (my favourite HSE sign ever, that one BTW).

 

If you're coming from a position like it is here and imposing control from no guns to controlled ownership, that's a hell of a lot easier than de-gunning a whole continent.

 

I just really don't see how it could work. As I said easier the genies out of the bottle and added to that there's the small problem of the constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's per capita, you absolute fuckwit :lol:

I am well aware of that.

 

US 300 Million people of whom 4 out of every 100,000 murder (assuming single victim single perpetrator)

 

UK 60 Million people of whom 1.5 out of every 100,000 murder(assuming single victim single perpetrator)

 

If you increased the UK population to equivalent size do you really think that the murder rate per capita would stay at 1.5, or do you think that with the growth of population that the number of people, within that population, who are capable of committing murder would also increase in some proportion, ergo the number per capita would perhaps also grow. Fuckwit.

 

I wonder what it would look like if you could extract the UK demographic and apply it to 60 Million of the equivalent US demographic in terms of murder rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop making new ones, stop selling them and stop making and selling bullets.

 

Issue them in the sticks at a local level with minimal ammo under local police/sheriff control to known locals only.

 

Make possession outside sticksville a crime.

 

The constitution can be amended. Then again if the thick twats read the whole sentence referring to guns instead of stopping short it wouldn't need changing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am well aware of that.

 

US 300 Million people of whom 4 out of every 100,000 murder (assuming single victim single perpetrator)

 

UK 60 Million people of whom 1.5 out of every 100,000 murder(assuming single victim single perpetrator)

 

If you increased the UK population to equivalent size do you really think that the murder rate per capita would stay at 1.5, or do you think that with the growth of population that the number of people, within that population, who are capable of committing murder would also increase in some proportion, ergo the number per capita would perhaps also grow. Fuckwit.

 

I wonder what it would look like if you could extract the UK demographic and apply it to 60 Million of the equivalent US demographic in terms of murder rates.

Nah, not having that like :lol: Nice try though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how the fuck could you implement it, seriously. It's not about some aspirational dream it's about reality.

 

How could you draft the appropriate law, there are people who absolutely need guns, like my mate out in the sticks, upper Wisconsin/Michigan/Alaska etc. is not like the Cheviots, you don't have Health and Safety signs at work telling you that before descending to look down and check under the stairs outside the plant for fucking polar bears, out in the sticks over here, but you do in Alaska. (my favourite HSE sign ever, that one BTW).

 

If you're coming from a position like it is here and imposing control from no guns to controlled ownership, that's a hell of a lot easier than de-gunning a whole continent.

 

I just really don't see how it could work. As I said easier the genies out of the bottle and added to that there's the small problem of the constitution.

If only there was an example of a developed country introducing dramatic and sweeping gun control law changes recently?

 

 

Anyway just because the right thing to do is the hard thing to do isn't sufficient reason to not do it. Especially when not doing it is only making things worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many gun massacres were there in America in the last 5 years?

How many Knife or baseball bat massacres were there in the same period?

 

How many guns does it take to prevent a gun massacre from happening? Do they pre-teens need to be packing heat?

 

The rationale reasonable gun owners in the sticks of Alaska surely wouldn't mind having to wait 30 days for background checks to be carried out for them to be permitted to own a shotgun/rifle? They'd probably be ok knowing that was the minor inconvenience they had to pay to make sure that a maniac was unable to wander into a gun show off the street and buy enough arms and ammunition to take out Lithuania's defence force.No

 

Nobody is talking about zero guns, people are saying fucking regulate them more than the UK does tvs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that if the UK population grew to 300 Million we'd still have the same murder rate as with 60 Million. Aye OK :D

There's only two options here, either you didn't understand that the murder rates quoted were per capita or you're arguing that you'd expect the murder rates in countries to rise or fall in direct proportion to their respective populations. Since you appear to be trying to make out it's the latter, what are you basing that on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only there was an example of a developed country introducing dramatic and sweeping gun control law changes recently?

 

 

Anyway just because the right thing to do is the hard thing to do isn't sufficient reason to not do it. Especially when not doing it is only making things worse.

Australia has re-armed, as many guns there now as there was before. http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html

 

After the controls robbery etc. went up, has fallen again now.

 

Also it's not being made worse or getting worse, violent crime in the US is as low now as it was mid 70's and continues to drop.

Edited by Toonpack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know what, have all the guns mate. You crack on, hopefully you'll wipe yourselves out and grown up nations can get along fine without you.

 

:lol: fucking idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know what, have all the guns mate. You crack on, hopefully you'll wipe yourselves out and grown up nations can get along fine without you.

 

:lol: fucking idiots.

I don't own a gun you knob.

 

Given we (in the UK) don't have any guns our murder/violent crime rate is fucking appalling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't own a gun you knob.

 

Given we (in the UK) don't have any guns our murder/violent crime rate is fucking appalling.

That makes absolutely no sense in the context of your argument, i.e. that guns are not the cause of the murder rate being higher in the US than over here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is why there will never be meaningful gun control reforms in the USA.

:lol: This.

I don't like the argument not to bother with it because it's hard to implement, they would also be able to pick up a lot of gang members that have guns even if they couldn't nick them on other charges.

About 2 weeks ago there was a double gang shooting 10-15 minutes away from where I live, would those murders have happened without firearms? it takes a certain type of person to kill at all but guns make killing far easier, it's a lot harder to find someone willing to go up and stab someone to death instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes absolutely no sense in the context of your argument, i.e. that guns are not the cause of the murder rate being higher in the US than over here.

Banning (not just controlling) guns had no effect on the murder rate over here. Even after the legislation was passed in the UK murder rates continued to go up, along a growth rate similar to before the legislation, reaching a peak around 2003/4-ish it's now down to about the same as the early 80's (when there were guns).

 

Getting rid of guns is not the magic bullet to reduce murder as most seem to be portraying, there are way deeper issues than just the guns. Take away the guns and the murder rates are still way higher than they are over here. If this country is anything to go by, legislating for guns has no effect on murder rates otherwise why did the murder rate continue to rise, for around 10 years, after the ban over here.

 

Guns undoubtedly turn some situations, which maybe wouldn't be fatal, into murder, but Americans kill other Americans way more than any other western country even discounting the guns. Look at the Swiss, about half the fuckers have a gun and assault rifle or carbine for that matter, their murder rate is bugger all comparatively.

 

Chicago - has some of toughest gun laws and controls in the US and no gun shops, you can't carry them in the street hidden or not etc. yet had 500 homicides in 2012(Detroit has 47.5/100,000 FFS). Houston has roughly the same population as Chicago (around 600K different) and over 1500 places you can buy a gun, with Texas' anyone can have one rules, and you can carry a gun just about anywhere, but Houston only (only!) had 217 murders. Median income between those two places is about the same as well btw.

 

It's way more complicated than just guns. There's huge diversity in the statistics within the US, never mind anywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Swiss are trained.

 

Americans are idiots.

 

 

(For clarity I'm done trying to make sense with you, your arguments are self defeating and you fail to understand the simplest of points)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Swiss are trained.

 

Americans are idiots.

 

 

(For clarity I'm done trying to make sense with you, your arguments are self defeating and you fail to understand the simplest of points)

Yeah all Americans are idiots, that really stacks up.

 

What are these simplest of points I don't understand ??? Maybe, just maybe, the things you think are absolute just aren't as clear cut as you think.

 

Answer me this, IF guns are the root of all evil, and the primary cause of murder in particular, why didn't the murder rate in dear old blighty fall immediately guns were banned. How could it conceivably have continued to rise, eh?

 

I'd love to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am well aware of that.

 

US 300 Million people of whom 4 out of every 100,000 murder (assuming single victim single perpetrator)

 

UK 60 Million people of whom 1.5 out of every 100,000 murder(assuming single victim single perpetrator)

 

If you increased the UK population to equivalent size do you really think that the murder rate per capita would stay at 1.5, or do you think that with the growth of population that the number of people, within that population, who are capable of committing murder would also increase in some proportion, ergo the number per capita would perhaps also grow. Fuckwit.

 

I wonder what it would look like if you could extract the UK demographic and apply it to 60 Million of the equivalent US demographic in terms of murder rates.

 

Erm no mate because the number of people that don't commit murder would also increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm no mate because the number of people that don't commit murder would also increase.

Yes they would, but the murder rate per capita would only remain constant if that population growth was uniform across all demographics.

 

If the demographic that has the inclination to murder more, within the society, grows at a quicker rate than the demographic with the lesser murderous intent then that whole society's murder rate per capita will increase.

 

All that said, murder rates in the US are falling, despite all the guns.

 

Canny read (from 2011):

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304066504576345553135009870

 

Although I'm not sure about his US v UK robbery etc comparison.

 

Maybe it's not the lead in bullets either:

 

There may also be a medical reason for the decline in crime. For decades, doctors have known that children with lots of lead in their blood are much more likely to be aggressive, violent and delinquent. In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency required oil companies to stop putting lead in gasoline. At the same time, lead in paint was banned for any new home (though old buildings still have lead paint, which children can absorb).

 

Tests have shown that the amount of lead in Americans' blood fell by four-fifths between 1975 and 1991. A 2007 study by the economist Jessica Wolpaw Reyes contended that the reduction in gasoline lead produced more than half of the decline in violent crime during the 1990s in the U.S. and might bring about greater declines in the future. Another economist, Rick Nevin, has made the same argument for other nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.