Because of no right to own firearms...

[Tommy Tainant]

The cesspool that is Western Europe...

Home Secretary Sajid Javid reveals how he was a moped mugging victim as he launches battle to beat villains

Less than one in 20 street robberies are being solved by police | Daily Mail Online

Nobody was killed. That must be a source of comfort ?

 

[Sahba]

Yes, we can prove it...

From the Daily Mail...left wing source....

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Politifact....left wing source...

Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does

For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

You are calling the dailymail.co.uk a left wing source? It's so right wing it's almost off the scale. It's just left of a closet homicidal axe murderer. Are you saying you are right of that? Do you bring that closet homicidal axe murder his morning coffee and donuts?

As for your second source, the types of violent crimes are much different. For instance, a punch in the mouth probably won't be reported in the US but it will be in the UK. It's an Assault in both places. But in the US, it's so minor it's not worth reporting. The UK figures are skewed by the fact that minor violence is reported as important as the major ones so the numbers are higher. So the US ends up looking like it has less violent crime. It doesn't. In fact, looking at your source and beyond, the claim that violent crime is higher in the UK is false. How false it is, we can't' tell since the two countries report violent crime differently. But the best scenario would be that there is no real difference if both were reported the same way. But the US would have the highest Gun Related Violent Crime by a very large margin while the UK would probably take the Rape numbers without a weapon of any kind. Violent Crime is going to happen but you are much more likely to survive a violent crime in the UK than you are in the US.

You cherry picked the 2nd source and left out that part. It's called Lying, there, cupcake.

You are talking out of your ass again.......you shouldn't do that, you will get a rash...

I can always tell when you are painted into another corner. You don't rebutt, you resort to insults. Well, cupcake, you lose once again. Get over it and move on to the next nonsensical subject. Stick a fork in you, you are done.

Except NOT one of your claims is true. FBI CDC and other Government sources all verify that firearms related incidents are all going DOWN and have been since the 90's. As firearm ownership goes up death and accidents all are going down. As for violent crime in the US it is pretty much confined to large democrat run cities with LOTS of blacks and Hispanics. In England it is EVERY where even the small towns.

In the US, they went down not because of more guns in lawful citizens hands. That has had nothing to do with anything other than not allow the accidental shootings to go down faster. The Gun related Violent Crimes went down due to the inner cities efforts in combating gun related crimes. Almost all inner cities rates have gone down since 1993. I can try and tell you it's because of the heavy gun regulations but that isn't it. It's the training of police and community involvement that have caused it to go down. I can remember when Denver was the Cop Murder Capital of the World. The number of Cops being shot there was staggering. Denver had a Mayor change and the new Mayor put together Community Action Groups that worked closely with the Police Forces and the Community. And they busted about half the Cops for corruption while they were at it. They started these programs in the early 90s but it wasn't until the late 90s or early 2000s that it started making a difference. More Guns or More Gun Regulations had nothing to do with it. NYC did the same thing in the early 2000s and the murder rate and gun related violent crimes went way down. I have NEVER claimed they have gone up. You are just making crap up again trying to discredit the person mauling your heroes. Shall I tear into you for a bit or are you going to start actually discussing things like a human.

Is the concept kind-o like the Obama implemented PROMISE program... where a county (we'll call it Robert Runcie-ville) can get together with the county authorities (we'll call it Scott Israel dept.) And decide based on their whim... where they want the data to be...? Down here... Up there & the best part is.. it is exactly what they choose to report that determines the data... Better yet.. they get to attribute it, by whim of course, to any political ideology, legislation or policy that they choose... How Fantastic is that!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I can always tell when you are painted into another corner. You don't rebutt, you resort to insults. Well, cupcake, you lose once again. Get over it and move on to the next nonsensical subject. Stick a fork in you, you are done.

Except NOT one of your claims is true. FBI CDC and other Government sources all verify that firearms related incidents are all going DOWN and have been since the 90's. As firearm ownership goes up death and accidents all are going down. As for violent crime in the US it is pretty much confined to large democrat run cities with LOTS of blacks and Hispanics. In England it is EVERY where even the small towns.

In the US, they went down not because of more guns in lawful citizens hands. That has had nothing to do with anything other than not allow the accidental shootings to go down faster. The Gun related Violent Crimes went down due to the inner cities efforts in combating gun related crimes. Almost all inner cities rates have gone down since 1993. I can try and tell you it's because of the heavy gun regulations but that isn't it. It's the training of police and community involvement that have caused it to go down. I can remember when Denver was the Cop Murder Capital of the World. The number of Cops being shot there was staggering. Denver had a Mayor change and the new Mayor put together Community Action Groups that worked closely with the Police Forces and the Community. And they busted about half the Cops for corruption while they were at it. They started these programs in the early 90s but it wasn't until the late 90s or early 2000s that it started making a difference. More Guns or More Gun Regulations had nothing to do with it. NYC did the same thing in the early 2000s and the murder rate and gun related violent crimes went way down. I have NEVER claimed they have gone up. You are just making crap up again trying to discredit the person mauling your heroes. Shall I tear into you for a bit or are you going to start actually discussing things like a human.

And as more Americans own and carry guns since the 1990s, our gun murder rate went down, gun crime, down, violent crime, down...

Nothing you anti gunners said about people owning and carrying guns came true....the gun crime rates went down, not up....

This shows that you are wrong....absolutely wrong when you claim that Americans owning guns increases the gun crime rate....you core tenet of your belief system is wrong....

We keep telling you the way you stop gun crime? You lock up gun criminals.....that is what Rudy did in New York, and he lowered their crime rate...gun control didn't stop the gun crime, cops arresting gun criminals did, and law abiding gun owners helped....

Fewer people in NYC carried gun under Rudy. The way the got the criminals put away was the combined cooperation between the Cops and the Community. More guns had nothing to do with it. You keep leaving out the most crucial information that has done the most good. Until you turn it into a lie.

Rudy had the police arrest actual criminals and the prosecutors locked them up...

Oh, yeah........and he used stop and frisk to disarm known criminals........you forgot that.....

And again...Americans owning and carrying guns did not increase the gun crime rate....you are wrong.

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You mention the real reason gun violence went down in the real violent areas which were the increased patrols, the better training of the Police, increase in the numbers of Police and the community involvement then you go off on a tangent about adding more guns to the citizens. There were fewer guns in the NYC Citizens hands during that time period and that has not changed. Therefore, you argument is a strawman of the worst kind. Rudy started it and the other Mayors continued most of his policies and the violent gun crimes took a nose dive. NYC went down by at least 4 times as many as before and has stayed there. Again, it was done by not getting more guns on the streets. Therefore, it was something else. And we both know what that something else was and is today.

Since the bulk of the violent gun crimes are in the urban cities then if you do something about it there, the numbers go way down fast. Like Denver which used to be on par with the old NYC and today's Chicago. Denver actually used those methods before NYC did and fell off the polls. When a multi million city gets their violent gun rate to drop dramatically, the overall figures across the nation drop severely. And it's done not by more guns, it's done by better police force and community involvement.

And the Cops used the Stop and Frisk way too much and it kept the community involvement from becoming useful. When that was stopped and Probably Cause was instituted as is a right then the real drop started to happen and the Community began working closely with the Cops.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Really? I state all the time that we had 11,004 gun murders in 2016, the last date for the FBI statisitcs...still waiting for 2017.....

of those 11,004 gun murders, 70-80% of them were committed against criminals by other criminals....

At the other end of the spectrum, Americans use their legal guns 2.4 million times a year to stop violent criminals from committing rape, robbery and murder...according to the CDC, the Department of Justice put that number at 1.5 million times a year...

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Violent crime is rape, robbery and murder, Which I also state all the time......you are an idiot.

Nope....I am telling you that British criminals didn't commit murder as often when law abiding Brits were allowed to own guns...and that banning and confiscating guns hasn't changed their gun murder rate....their gun crime rate? Is up 42% in London alone...23% across England and Wales just last year......

In a country that banned guns.....our rates went down 49% for gun murder 75% for gun crime and 72% for violent crime......

Explain that.

The al Capone era?
The turn of the C was a violent time.
We have a bit more education now, you included I hope
Do you seriously believe we are safer here than in the uk or Oz?
They laugh at our paranoia
Here's some more numbers you can quote to fit your made up mind

Nope....I am telling you that British criminals didn't commit murder as often when law abiding Brits were allowed to own guns...and that banning and confiscating guns hasn't changed their gun murder rate....their gun crime rate? Is up 42% in London alone...23% across England and Wales just last year......

In a country that banned guns.....our rates went down 49% for gun murder 75% for gun crime and 72% for violent crime......

Explain that.

There are more than one reason genius.
You are fixated on guns.
The 20s were. Violent, nothing to do with guns.
Are you seriously suggesting we are safer here than in the uk and oz.?
2 countries you have never lived in I bet
If you want some numbers you can fit to your indoctrinated beliefs...
United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
Oh now I see it's the DEMS/uppity nixes fault.
Maybe we should ban blacks to follow your argument

The vast majority of the violent crime in this country is in Progressive controlled urban areas... With extremely strict gun control laws

Yup,like Chicago where you can walk 10 blocks and buy one

People kill people not firearms

No, people with firearms kill people

People with knives kill people
People with baseball bats kill people
People kill people with their bare hands

People kill people
People have always killed people
People will always kill people

This is a fact as irrefutable as gravity

Now knowing this fact why on earth would you not want a gun?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are calling the dailymail.co.uk a left wing source? It's so right wing it's almost off the scale. It's just left of a closet homicidal axe murderer. Are you saying you are right of that? Do you bring that closet homicidal axe murder his morning coffee and donuts?

As for your second source, the types of violent crimes are much different. For instance, a punch in the mouth probably won't be reported in the US but it will be in the UK. It's an Assault in both places. But in the US, it's so minor it's not worth reporting. The UK figures are skewed by the fact that minor violence is reported as important as the major ones so the numbers are higher. So the US ends up looking like it has less violent crime. It doesn't. In fact, looking at your source and beyond, the claim that violent crime is higher in the UK is false. How false it is, we can't' tell since the two countries report violent crime differently. But the best scenario would be that there is no real difference if both were reported the same way. But the US would have the highest Gun Related Violent Crime by a very large margin while the UK would probably take the Rape numbers without a weapon of any kind. Violent Crime is going to happen but you are much more likely to survive a violent crime in the UK than you are in the US.

You cherry picked the 2nd source and left out that part. It's called Lying, there, cupcake.

You are talking out of your ass again.......you shouldn't do that, you will get a rash...

I can always tell when you are painted into another corner. You don't rebutt, you resort to insults. Well, cupcake, you lose once again. Get over it and move on to the next nonsensical subject. Stick a fork in you, you are done.

Except NOT one of your claims is true. FBI CDC and other Government sources all verify that firearms related incidents are all going DOWN and have been since the 90's. As firearm ownership goes up death and accidents all are going down. As for violent crime in the US it is pretty much confined to large democrat run cities with LOTS of blacks and Hispanics. In England it is EVERY where even the small towns.

In the US, they went down not because of more guns in lawful citizens hands. That has had nothing to do with anything other than not allow the accidental shootings to go down faster. The Gun related Violent Crimes went down due to the inner cities efforts in combating gun related crimes. Almost all inner cities rates have gone down since 1993. I can try and tell you it's because of the heavy gun regulations but that isn't it. It's the training of police and community involvement that have caused it to go down. I can remember when Denver was the Cop Murder Capital of the World. The number of Cops being shot there was staggering. Denver had a Mayor change and the new Mayor put together Community Action Groups that worked closely with the Police Forces and the Community. And they busted about half the Cops for corruption while they were at it. They started these programs in the early 90s but it wasn't until the late 90s or early 2000s that it started making a difference. More Guns or More Gun Regulations had nothing to do with it. NYC did the same thing in the early 2000s and the murder rate and gun related violent crimes went way down. I have NEVER claimed they have gone up. You are just making crap up again trying to discredit the person mauling your heroes. Shall I tear into you for a bit or are you going to start actually discussing things like a human.

Is the concept kind-o like the Obama implemented PROMISE program... where a county (we'll call it Robert Runcie-ville) can get together with the county authorities (we'll call it Scott Israel dept.) And decide based on their whim... where they want the data to be...? Down here... Up there & the best part is.. it is exactly what they choose to report that determines the data... Better yet.. they get to attribute it, by whim of course, to any political ideology, legislation or policy that they choose... How Fantastic is that!

Try that again. Your response makes little sense.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, we can prove it...

From the Daily Mail...left wing source....

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Politifact....left wing source...

Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does

For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

You are calling the dailymail.co.uk a left wing source? It's so right wing it's almost off the scale. It's just left of a closet homicidal axe murderer. Are you saying you are right of that? Do you bring that closet homicidal axe murder his morning coffee and donuts?

As for your second source, the types of violent crimes are much different. For instance, a punch in the mouth probably won't be reported in the US but it will be in the UK. It's an Assault in both places. But in the US, it's so minor it's not worth reporting. The UK figures are skewed by the fact that minor violence is reported as important as the major ones so the numbers are higher. So the US ends up looking like it has less violent crime. It doesn't. In fact, looking at your source and beyond, the claim that violent crime is higher in the UK is false. How false it is, we can't' tell since the two countries report violent crime differently. But the best scenario would be that there is no real difference if both were reported the same way. But the US would have the highest Gun Related Violent Crime by a very large margin while the UK would probably take the Rape numbers without a weapon of any kind. Violent Crime is going to happen but you are much more likely to survive a violent crime in the UK than you are in the US.

You cherry picked the 2nd source and left out that part. It's called Lying, there, cupcake.

You are talking out of your ass again.......you shouldn't do that, you will get a rash...

I can always tell when you are painted into another corner. You don't rebutt, you resort to insults. Well, cupcake, you lose once again. Get over it and move on to the next nonsensical subject. Stick a fork in you, you are done.

Except NOT one of your claims is true. FBI CDC and other Government sources all verify that firearms related incidents are all going DOWN and have been since the 90's. As firearm ownership goes up death and accidents all are going down. As for violent crime in the US it is pretty much confined to large democrat run cities with LOTS of blacks and Hispanics. In England it is EVERY where even the small towns.

In the US, they went down not because of more guns in lawful citizens hands. That has had nothing to do with anything other than not allow the accidental shootings to go down faster. The Gun related Violent Crimes went down due to the inner cities efforts in combating gun related crimes. Almost all inner cities rates have gone down since 1993. I can try and tell you it's because of the heavy gun regulations but that isn't it. It's the training of police and community involvement that have caused it to go down. I can remember when Denver was the Cop Murder Capital of the World. The number of Cops being shot there was staggering. Denver had a Mayor change and the new Mayor put together Community Action Groups that worked closely with the Police Forces and the Community. And they busted about half the Cops for corruption while they were at it. They started these programs in the early 90s but it wasn't until the late 90s or early 2000s that it started making a difference. More Guns or More Gun Regulations had nothing to do with it. NYC did the same thing in the early 2000s and the murder rate and gun related violent crimes went way down. I have NEVER claimed they have gone up. You are just making crap up again trying to discredit the person mauling your heroes. Shall I tear into you for a bit or are you going to start actually discussing things like a human.

Guns in the hands of 99.999% of the people are a neutral entity

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The al Capone era?
The turn of the C was a violent time.
We have a bit more education now, you included I hope
Do you seriously believe we are safer here than in the uk or Oz?
They laugh at our paranoia
Here's some more numbers you can quote to fit your made up mind
There are more than one reason genius.
You are fixated on guns.
The 20s were. Violent, nothing to do with guns.
Are you seriously suggesting we are safer here than in the uk and oz.?
2 countries you have never lived in I bet
If you want some numbers you can fit to your indoctrinated beliefs...
United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
Oh now I see it's the DEMS/uppity nixes fault.
Maybe we should ban blacks to follow your argument

The vast majority of the violent crime in this country is in Progressive controlled urban areas... With extremely strict gun control laws

Yup,like Chicago where you can walk 10 blocks and buy one

People kill people not firearms

No, people with firearms kill people

People with knives kill people
People with baseball bats kill people
People kill people with their bare hands

People kill people
People have always killed people
People will always kill people

This is a fact as irrefutable as gravity

Now knowing this fact why on earth would you not want a gun?

It's just much easier to end a petty argument with a gun than all the other things you mentioned. Most of the ones you name take time and effort and can usually be stopped in time if there are others around with the will to stop it. But if you use a gun, it's fast and final and you can only be stopped after the fact.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The vast majority of the violent crime in this country is in Progressive controlled urban areas... With extremely strict gun control laws

Yup,like Chicago where you can walk 10 blocks and buy one

People kill people not firearms

No, people with firearms kill people

And there I was refraining from saying the same thing. Sheesh, this is a tuff crowd, ain't it.

Bullets from firearms kill people. Coroner's reports don't say, "Cause of death; person". They may say gunshot, mortal wound from firearm, bullet in brain, etc., but never "a person'.
Odd, huh?

The term homicide by definition means killed by another person.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are calling the dailymail.co.uk a left wing source? It's so right wing it's almost off the scale. It's just left of a closet homicidal axe murderer. Are you saying you are right of that? Do you bring that closet homicidal axe murder his morning coffee and donuts?

As for your second source, the types of violent crimes are much different. For instance, a punch in the mouth probably won't be reported in the US but it will be in the UK. It's an Assault in both places. But in the US, it's so minor it's not worth reporting. The UK figures are skewed by the fact that minor violence is reported as important as the major ones so the numbers are higher. So the US ends up looking like it has less violent crime. It doesn't. In fact, looking at your source and beyond, the claim that violent crime is higher in the UK is false. How false it is, we can't' tell since the two countries report violent crime differently. But the best scenario would be that there is no real difference if both were reported the same way. But the US would have the highest Gun Related Violent Crime by a very large margin while the UK would probably take the Rape numbers without a weapon of any kind. Violent Crime is going to happen but you are much more likely to survive a violent crime in the UK than you are in the US.

You cherry picked the 2nd source and left out that part. It's called Lying, there, cupcake.

You are talking out of your ass again.......you shouldn't do that, you will get a rash...

I can always tell when you are painted into another corner. You don't rebutt, you resort to insults. Well, cupcake, you lose once again. Get over it and move on to the next nonsensical subject. Stick a fork in you, you are done.

Except NOT one of your claims is true. FBI CDC and other Government sources all verify that firearms related incidents are all going DOWN and have been since the 90's. As firearm ownership goes up death and accidents all are going down. As for violent crime in the US it is pretty much confined to large democrat run cities with LOTS of blacks and Hispanics. In England it is EVERY where even the small towns.

In the US, they went down not because of more guns in lawful citizens hands. That has had nothing to do with anything other than not allow the accidental shootings to go down faster. The Gun related Violent Crimes went down due to the inner cities efforts in combating gun related crimes. Almost all inner cities rates have gone down since 1993. I can try and tell you it's because of the heavy gun regulations but that isn't it. It's the training of police and community involvement that have caused it to go down. I can remember when Denver was the Cop Murder Capital of the World. The number of Cops being shot there was staggering. Denver had a Mayor change and the new Mayor put together Community Action Groups that worked closely with the Police Forces and the Community. And they busted about half the Cops for corruption while they were at it. They started these programs in the early 90s but it wasn't until the late 90s or early 2000s that it started making a difference. More Guns or More Gun Regulations had nothing to do with it. NYC did the same thing in the early 2000s and the murder rate and gun related violent crimes went way down. I have NEVER claimed they have gone up. You are just making crap up again trying to discredit the person mauling your heroes. Shall I tear into you for a bit or are you going to start actually discussing things like a human.

Guns in the hands of 99.999% of the people are a neutral entity

That was already tried in the 1860s. Hence the changes started in 1871. Wonder why that was?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The vast majority of the violent crime in this country is in Progressive controlled urban areas... With extremely strict gun control laws

Yup,like Chicago where you can walk 10 blocks and buy one

People kill people not firearms

No, people with firearms kill people

People with knives kill people
People with baseball bats kill people
People kill people with their bare hands

People kill people
People have always killed people
People will always kill people

This is a fact as irrefutable as gravity

Now knowing this fact why on earth would you not want a gun?

It's just much easier to end a petty argument with a gun than all the other things you mentioned. Most of the ones you name take time and effort and can usually be stopped in time if there are others around with the will to stop it. But if you use a gun, it's fast and final and you can only be stopped after the fact.

And what percentage of people end arguments by shooting someone?

in 2016 there were 11000 homicides committed with firearms that's .003% of the population

Since we know some people kill more than one person then the percentage of people who kill with guns is even lower

Now how many of those were so called petty disputes?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are talking out of your ass again.......you shouldn't do that, you will get a rash...

I can always tell when you are painted into another corner. You don't rebutt, you resort to insults. Well, cupcake, you lose once again. Get over it and move on to the next nonsensical subject. Stick a fork in you, you are done.

Except NOT one of your claims is true. FBI CDC and other Government sources all verify that firearms related incidents are all going DOWN and have been since the 90's. As firearm ownership goes up death and accidents all are going down. As for violent crime in the US it is pretty much confined to large democrat run cities with LOTS of blacks and Hispanics. In England it is EVERY where even the small towns.

In the US, they went down not because of more guns in lawful citizens hands. That has had nothing to do with anything other than not allow the accidental shootings to go down faster. The Gun related Violent Crimes went down due to the inner cities efforts in combating gun related crimes. Almost all inner cities rates have gone down since 1993. I can try and tell you it's because of the heavy gun regulations but that isn't it. It's the training of police and community involvement that have caused it to go down. I can remember when Denver was the Cop Murder Capital of the World. The number of Cops being shot there was staggering. Denver had a Mayor change and the new Mayor put together Community Action Groups that worked closely with the Police Forces and the Community. And they busted about half the Cops for corruption while they were at it. They started these programs in the early 90s but it wasn't until the late 90s or early 2000s that it started making a difference. More Guns or More Gun Regulations had nothing to do with it. NYC did the same thing in the early 2000s and the murder rate and gun related violent crimes went way down. I have NEVER claimed they have gone up. You are just making crap up again trying to discredit the person mauling your heroes. Shall I tear into you for a bit or are you going to start actually discussing things like a human.

Guns in the hands of 99.999% of the people are a neutral entity

That was already tried in the 1860s. Hence the changes started in 1871. Wonder why that was?

Easy

control.

 

[Sahba]

You are talking out of your ass again.......you shouldn't do that, you will get a rash...

I can always tell when you are painted into another corner. You don't rebutt, you resort to insults. Well, cupcake, you lose once again. Get over it and move on to the next nonsensical subject. Stick a fork in you, you are done.

Except NOT one of your claims is true. FBI CDC and other Government sources all verify that firearms related incidents are all going DOWN and have been since the 90's. As firearm ownership goes up death and accidents all are going down. As for violent crime in the US it is pretty much confined to large democrat run cities with LOTS of blacks and Hispanics. In England it is EVERY where even the small towns.

In the US, they went down not because of more guns in lawful citizens hands. That has had nothing to do with anything other than not allow the accidental shootings to go down faster. The Gun related Violent Crimes went down due to the inner cities efforts in combating gun related crimes. Almost all inner cities rates have gone down since 1993. I can try and tell you it's because of the heavy gun regulations but that isn't it. It's the training of police and community involvement that have caused it to go down. I can remember when Denver was the Cop Murder Capital of the World. The number of Cops being shot there was staggering. Denver had a Mayor change and the new Mayor put together Community Action Groups that worked closely with the Police Forces and the Community. And they busted about half the Cops for corruption while they were at it. They started these programs in the early 90s but it wasn't until the late 90s or early 2000s that it started making a difference. More Guns or More Gun Regulations had nothing to do with it. NYC did the same thing in the early 2000s and the murder rate and gun related violent crimes went way down. I have NEVER claimed they have gone up. You are just making crap up again trying to discredit the person mauling your heroes. Shall I tear into you for a bit or are you going to start actually discussing things like a human.

Is the concept kind-o like the Obama implemented PROMISE program... where a county (we'll call it Robert Runcie-ville) can get together with the county authorities (we'll call it Scott Israel dept.) And decide based on their whim... where they want the data to be...? Down here... Up there & the best part is.. it is exactly what they choose to report that determines the data... Better yet.. they get to attribute it, by whim of course, to any political ideology, legislation or policy that they choose... How Fantastic is that!

Try that again. Your response makes little sense.

I'm skeptical of your reported numbers... lol

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yup,like Chicago where you can walk 10 blocks and buy one

People kill people not firearms

No, people with firearms kill people

People with knives kill people
People with baseball bats kill people
People kill people with their bare hands

People kill people
People have always killed people
People will always kill people

This is a fact as irrefutable as gravity

Now knowing this fact why on earth would you not want a gun?

It's just much easier to end a petty argument with a gun than all the other things you mentioned. Most of the ones you name take time and effort and can usually be stopped in time if there are others around with the will to stop it. But if you use a gun, it's fast and final and you can only be stopped after the fact.

And what percentage of people end arguments by shooting someone?

in 2016 there were 11000 homicides committed with firearms that's .003% of the population

Since we know some people kill more than one person then the percentage of people who kill with guns is even lower

Now how many of those were so called petty disputes?

Since there are so few gun on the streets by civilians the numbers are low and we need to keep it that way. Like the person in the Florida Theater that pulled out his gun and shot and killed a person because he didn't like the way he was eating popcorn. I imagine there is more to that story but had the gun not been a factor, maybe a good ass beating would have been in order instead.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I can always tell when you are painted into another corner. You don't rebutt, you resort to insults. Well, cupcake, you lose once again. Get over it and move on to the next nonsensical subject. Stick a fork in you, you are done.

Except NOT one of your claims is true. FBI CDC and other Government sources all verify that firearms related incidents are all going DOWN and have been since the 90's. As firearm ownership goes up death and accidents all are going down. As for violent crime in the US it is pretty much confined to large democrat run cities with LOTS of blacks and Hispanics. In England it is EVERY where even the small towns.

In the US, they went down not because of more guns in lawful citizens hands. That has had nothing to do with anything other than not allow the accidental shootings to go down faster. The Gun related Violent Crimes went down due to the inner cities efforts in combating gun related crimes. Almost all inner cities rates have gone down since 1993. I can try and tell you it's because of the heavy gun regulations but that isn't it. It's the training of police and community involvement that have caused it to go down. I can remember when Denver was the Cop Murder Capital of the World. The number of Cops being shot there was staggering. Denver had a Mayor change and the new Mayor put together Community Action Groups that worked closely with the Police Forces and the Community. And they busted about half the Cops for corruption while they were at it. They started these programs in the early 90s but it wasn't until the late 90s or early 2000s that it started making a difference. More Guns or More Gun Regulations had nothing to do with it. NYC did the same thing in the early 2000s and the murder rate and gun related violent crimes went way down. I have NEVER claimed they have gone up. You are just making crap up again trying to discredit the person mauling your heroes. Shall I tear into you for a bit or are you going to start actually discussing things like a human.

Is the concept kind-o like the Obama implemented PROMISE program... where a county (we'll call it Robert Runcie-ville) can get together with the county authorities (we'll call it Scott Israel dept.) And decide based on their whim... where they want the data to be...? Down here... Up there & the best part is.. it is exactly what they choose to report that determines the data... Better yet.. they get to attribute it, by whim of course, to any political ideology, legislation or policy that they choose... How Fantastic is that!

Try that again. Your response makes little sense.

I'm skeptical of your reported numbers... lol

Actually, the gun nutters have provided us with those numbers. Are skeptical because I used those numbers or the fact it came from them?

 

[Sahba]

People kill people not firearms

No, people with firearms kill people

People with knives kill people
People with baseball bats kill people
People kill people with their bare hands

People kill people
People have always killed people
People will always kill people

This is a fact as irrefutable as gravity

Now knowing this fact why on earth would you not want a gun?

It's just much easier to end a petty argument with a gun than all the other things you mentioned. Most of the ones you name take time and effort and can usually be stopped in time if there are others around with the will to stop it. But if you use a gun, it's fast and final and you can only be stopped after the fact.

And what percentage of people end arguments by shooting someone?

in 2016 there were 11000 homicides committed with firearms that's .003% of the population

Since we know some people kill more than one person then the percentage of people who kill with guns is even lower

Now how many of those were so called petty disputes?

Since there are so few gun on the streets by civilians the numbers are low and we need to keep it that way. Like the person in the Florida Theater that pulled out his gun and shot and killed a person because he didn't like the way he was eating popcorn. I imagine there is more to that story but had the gun not been a factor, maybe a good ass beating would have been in order instead.

First let me commend you on your posts... I enjoy reading them and they are well thought out!

I see it diametrically opposite than you... was that gun toting hot head in the theater under the (correct) assumption that he could act out impulsively because there were no other guns? If in lets say a small town Texas theater where he thought that perhaps 1/2 of the men and / or women were armed... would he have done what he did... I say, not as likely.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I can always tell when you are painted into another corner. You don't rebutt, you resort to insults. Well, cupcake, you lose once again. Get over it and move on to the next nonsensical subject. Stick a fork in you, you are done.

Except NOT one of your claims is true. FBI CDC and other Government sources all verify that firearms related incidents are all going DOWN and have been since the 90's. As firearm ownership goes up death and accidents all are going down. As for violent crime in the US it is pretty much confined to large democrat run cities with LOTS of blacks and Hispanics. In England it is EVERY where even the small towns.

In the US, they went down not because of more guns in lawful citizens hands. That has had nothing to do with anything other than not allow the accidental shootings to go down faster. The Gun related Violent Crimes went down due to the inner cities efforts in combating gun related crimes. Almost all inner cities rates have gone down since 1993. I can try and tell you it's because of the heavy gun regulations but that isn't it. It's the training of police and community involvement that have caused it to go down. I can remember when Denver was the Cop Murder Capital of the World. The number of Cops being shot there was staggering. Denver had a Mayor change and the new Mayor put together Community Action Groups that worked closely with the Police Forces and the Community. And they busted about half the Cops for corruption while they were at it. They started these programs in the early 90s but it wasn't until the late 90s or early 2000s that it started making a difference. More Guns or More Gun Regulations had nothing to do with it. NYC did the same thing in the early 2000s and the murder rate and gun related violent crimes went way down. I have NEVER claimed they have gone up. You are just making crap up again trying to discredit the person mauling your heroes. Shall I tear into you for a bit or are you going to start actually discussing things like a human.

Guns in the hands of 99.999% of the people are a neutral entity

That was already tried in the 1860s. Hence the changes started in 1871. Wonder why that was?

Easy

control.

Sorry to break it to you but we are no more civilized now then we were then. The Control difference is from "Gun Control" and that is all that makes the difference. Before that, there really wasn't much of gun regulations in the west and it just got out of hand. During the same time period, in the East, there was quite a bit of gun control and also a lot of Community force to prevent the same thing from happening. All Cities like Dallas did was go to the same laws that Philly and NYC had in place that got rid of the open murders they had before they passed the open carry there.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No, people with firearms kill people

People with knives kill people
People with baseball bats kill people
People kill people with their bare hands

People kill people
People have always killed people
People will always kill people

This is a fact as irrefutable as gravity

Now knowing this fact why on earth would you not want a gun?

It's just much easier to end a petty argument with a gun than all the other things you mentioned. Most of the ones you name take time and effort and can usually be stopped in time if there are others around with the will to stop it. But if you use a gun, it's fast and final and you can only be stopped after the fact.

And what percentage of people end arguments by shooting someone?

in 2016 there were 11000 homicides committed with firearms that's .003% of the population

Since we know some people kill more than one person then the percentage of people who kill with guns is even lower

Now how many of those were so called petty disputes?

Since there are so few gun on the streets by civilians the numbers are low and we need to keep it that way. Like the person in the Florida Theater that pulled out his gun and shot and killed a person because he didn't like the way he was eating popcorn. I imagine there is more to that story but had the gun not been a factor, maybe a good ass beating would have been in order instead.

First let me commend you on your posts... I enjoy reading them and they are well thought out!

I see it diametrically opposite than you... was that gun toting hot head in the theater under the (correct) assumption that he could act out impulsively because there were no other guns? If in lets say a small town Texas theater where he thought that perhaps 1/2 of the men and / or women were armed... would he have done what he did... I say, not as likely.

It wasn't covered very well. It happened in a deep red area and there wasn't enough supporting information to really tell what went on. But I can surmise that the dude took offense to a noisy eater and the noisy eater decided to go on a lip smacking obnoxious routine just to piss the dude off. BTW, the Gun was a legal gun since the Dude was a retired Deputy Sheriff. Tempers flare and BOOM. Take the gun out of the equation and an ass beating would have been in order.

 

[Sahba]

People with knives kill people
People with baseball bats kill people
People kill people with their bare hands

People kill people
People have always killed people
People will always kill people

This is a fact as irrefutable as gravity

Now knowing this fact why on earth would you not want a gun?

It's just much easier to end a petty argument with a gun than all the other things you mentioned. Most of the ones you name take time and effort and can usually be stopped in time if there are others around with the will to stop it. But if you use a gun, it's fast and final and you can only be stopped after the fact.

And what percentage of people end arguments by shooting someone?

in 2016 there were 11000 homicides committed with firearms that's .003% of the population

Since we know some people kill more than one person then the percentage of people who kill with guns is even lower

Now how many of those were so called petty disputes?

Since there are so few gun on the streets by civilians the numbers are low and we need to keep it that way. Like the person in the Florida Theater that pulled out his gun and shot and killed a person because he didn't like the way he was eating popcorn. I imagine there is more to that story but had the gun not been a factor, maybe a good ass beating would have been in order instead.

First let me commend you on your posts... I enjoy reading them and they are well thought out!

I see it diametrically opposite than you... was that gun toting hot head in the theater under the (correct) assumption that he could act out impulsively because there were no other guns? If in lets say a small town Texas theater where he thought that perhaps 1/2 of the men and / or women were armed... would he have done what he did... I say, not as likely.

It wasn't covered very well. It happened in a deep red area and there wasn't enough supporting information to really tell what went on. But I can surmise that the dude took offense to a noisy eater and the noisy eater decided to go on a lip smacking obnoxious routine just to piss the dude off. BTW, the Gun was a legal gun since the Dude was a retired Deputy Sheriff. Tempers flare and BOOM. Take the gun out of the equation and an ass beating would have been in order.

Rare shit happens and there are "anomalies", (can we agree, not all that germain) which are not a good predictor of broad sweeping generalities in population / legislation / policies... Generally speaking I think anyone would be more reticent to pull any weapon surrounded by their peers possessing that same weapon. Just my honest opinion drawn from life... (especially my floozy bar hopping days)... lol

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's just much easier to end a petty argument with a gun than all the other things you mentioned. Most of the ones you name take time and effort and can usually be stopped in time if there are others around with the will to stop it. But if you use a gun, it's fast and final and you can only be stopped after the fact.

And what percentage of people end arguments by shooting someone?

in 2016 there were 11000 homicides committed with firearms that's .003% of the population

Since we know some people kill more than one person then the percentage of people who kill with guns is even lower

Now how many of those were so called petty disputes?

Since there are so few gun on the streets by civilians the numbers are low and we need to keep it that way. Like the person in the Florida Theater that pulled out his gun and shot and killed a person because he didn't like the way he was eating popcorn. I imagine there is more to that story but had the gun not been a factor, maybe a good ass beating would have been in order instead.

First let me commend you on your posts... I enjoy reading them and they are well thought out!

I see it diametrically opposite than you... was that gun toting hot head in the theater under the (correct) assumption that he could act out impulsively because there were no other guns? If in lets say a small town Texas theater where he thought that perhaps 1/2 of the men and / or women were armed... would he have done what he did... I say, not as likely.

It wasn't covered very well. It happened in a deep red area and there wasn't enough supporting information to really tell what went on. But I can surmise that the dude took offense to a noisy eater and the noisy eater decided to go on a lip smacking obnoxious routine just to piss the dude off. BTW, the Gun was a legal gun since the Dude was a retired Deputy Sheriff. Tempers flare and BOOM. Take the gun out of the equation and an ass beating would have been in order.

Rare shit happens and there are "anomalies", (can we agree, not all that germain) which are not a good predictor of broad sweeping generalities in population / legislation / policies... Generally speaking I think anyone would be more reticent to pull any weapon surrounded by their peers possessing that same weapon. Just my honest opinion drawn from life... (especially my floozy bar hopping days)... lol

One would think that except it's false. We are no more civilized now than we were in 1869. In 1869, in cities like Dallas, Denver and the like, on weekends, the Cowboys showed up with their sidearms straped on their hips. As the party continue, they got a little wild. Booze got into the mix, tempers flaired and people died. And this included innocent bystanders. We even still have a law on the Colorado Books about At the Ready but it's no longer enforced or needed. So most Cities in the West went to the no open carry of firearms within city limits. And it was enforced by whatever means was necessary. We have to be able to learn from our own history or we fail once again. More Guns at the rate it was in the West in 1869 means a lot of unnecessary killing and bloodshed that we need to avoid.

 

[Sahba]

And what percentage of people end arguments by shooting someone?

in 2016 there were 11000 homicides committed with firearms that's .003% of the population

Since we know some people kill more than one person then the percentage of people who kill with guns is even lower

Now how many of those were so called petty disputes?

Since there are so few gun on the streets by civilians the numbers are low and we need to keep it that way. Like the person in the Florida Theater that pulled out his gun and shot and killed a person because he didn't like the way he was eating popcorn. I imagine there is more to that story but had the gun not been a factor, maybe a good ass beating would have been in order instead.

First let me commend you on your posts... I enjoy reading them and they are well thought out!

I see it diametrically opposite than you... was that gun toting hot head in the theater under the (correct) assumption that he could act out impulsively because there were no other guns? If in lets say a small town Texas theater where he thought that perhaps 1/2 of the men and / or women were armed... would he have done what he did... I say, not as likely.

It wasn't covered very well. It happened in a deep red area and there wasn't enough supporting information to really tell what went on. But I can surmise that the dude took offense to a noisy eater and the noisy eater decided to go on a lip smacking obnoxious routine just to piss the dude off. BTW, the Gun was a legal gun since the Dude was a retired Deputy Sheriff. Tempers flare and BOOM. Take the gun out of the equation and an ass beating would have been in order.

Rare shit happens and there are "anomalies", (can we agree, not all that germain) which are not a good predictor of broad sweeping generalities in population / legislation / policies... Generally speaking I think anyone would be more reticent to pull any weapon surrounded by their peers possessing that same weapon. Just my honest opinion drawn from life... (especially my floozy bar hopping days)... lol

One would think that except it's false. We are no more civilized now than we were in 1869. In 1869, in cities like Dallas, Denver and the like, on weekends, the Cowboys showed up with their sidearms straped on their hips. As the party continue, they got a little wild. Booze got into the mix, tempers flaired and people died. And this included innocent bystanders. We even still have a law on the Colorado Books about At the Ready but it's no longer enforced or needed. So most Cities in the West went to the no open carry of firearms within city limits. And it was enforced by whatever means was necessary. We have to be able to learn from our own history or we fail once again. More Guns at the rate it was in the West in 1869 means a lot of unnecessary killing and bloodshed that we need to avoid.

Aren't there stiff penalties for imbibing while carrying in an establishment. I know for sure that if one were to draw, let alone fire there would be a shit load of explaining to do and likely prosecution...?