Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If the CDC says there are 11000 homicides but the guy who can't do percentages says 5100, who do you think I'll believe? I also notice you still haven't linked your source.Once again, the majority of gun violence happens in just a handful of cities. These cities all have a few things in common. Strict gun laws, and they are governed by democrats. Need I say more? And I repeat, yet again, the actual number of deaths by gun violence is so small, it's negligible. 5,100 gun homicides for the entire country. That's nothing. At least six times that number die in auto accidentsI just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
Of all the deaths in America, in 2013, 1.3 percent were killed by guns. Once again, why are liberals making such a big stink about it?As g 5000 pointed out some of the basic facts were wrong too.FastStatsI just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.I'm not wrong 0.009%. As far as sucking goes I have to say failing at basic math is a big no no if you're trying to use statistics. I haven't even gone in to the actual numbers. As far as it being a very small number. It means that in a medium sized town population 30000 on average a bit less then 3 people get killed. That is significant.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
So now we have a guy who not only can't do percentages but also can't look at the CDC website, the place were they collect this kind of data and get the correct numbers. I'm sensing a pattern here.
All right, genius. Perhaps you can show me just one example where gun laws reduce the number of homicides.If
If the CDC says there are 11000 homicides but the guy who can't do percentages says 5100, who do you think I'll believe? I also notice you still haven't linked your source.Once again, the majority of gun violence happens in just a handful of cities. These cities all have a few things in common. Strict gun laws, and they are governed by democrats. Need I say more? And I repeat, yet again, the actual number of deaths by gun violence is so small, it's negligible. 5,100 gun homicides for the entire country. That's nothing. At least six times that number die in auto accidentsI just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
Perhaps you can also explain to us how there was a huge surge in gun ownership, as well as applications for concealed carry, yet the number of homicides are down.If
If the CDC says there are 11000 homicides but the guy who can't do percentages says 5100, who do you think I'll believe? I also notice you still haven't linked your source.Once again, the majority of gun violence happens in just a handful of cities. These cities all have a few things in common. Strict gun laws, and they are governed by democrats. Need I say more? And I repeat, yet again, the actual number of deaths by gun violence is so small, it's negligible. 5,100 gun homicides for the entire country. That's nothing. At least six times that number die in auto accidentsI just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
If that's true 4225000 American's got killed by guns. So give me the source of that number.Of all the deaths in America, in 2013, 1.3 percent were killed by guns. Once again, why are liberals making such a big stink about it?As g 5000 pointed out some of the basic facts were wrong too.FastStatsI just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
So now we have a guy who not only can't do percentages but also can't look at the CDC website, the place were they collect this kind of data and get the correct numbers. I'm sensing a pattern here.
One more question for you. It was either Detroit, or Chicago. Can't remember which one. Anyway they finally allowed people to get concealed carry permits. Why don't you do a little research on crime statistics before and after this happened. Proof that guns do not cause crime. They actually reduced crime across the board. Homicides, home invasions, rapes. They all went down dramatically. Double digits in many cases. Explain that.If
If the CDC says there are 11000 homicides but the guy who can't do percentages says 5100, who do you think I'll believe? I also notice you still haven't linked your source.Once again, the majority of gun violence happens in just a handful of cities. These cities all have a few things in common. Strict gun laws, and they are governed by democrats. Need I say more? And I repeat, yet again, the actual number of deaths by gun violence is so small, it's negligible. 5,100 gun homicides for the entire country. That's nothing. At least six times that number die in auto accidentsI just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those 30000 deaths are suicides or justified shootings. You are also ignoring the fact most gun homicides happen in just a few cities. There are many cities, that have a LOT more guns and much lower murder rates. So your argument is pointless, and the number of deaths is less than one in 30000. Hardly significant. BTW, remember what the article said about that single homicide in Alabama? LOL. You are a fool.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
Ok. Gun laws in Australia - WikipediaAll right, genius. Perhaps you can show me just one example where gun laws reduce the number of homicides.If
If the CDC says there are 11000 homicides but the guy who can't do percentages says 5100, who do you think I'll believe? I also notice you still haven't linked your source.Once again, the majority of gun violence happens in just a handful of cities. These cities all have a few things in common. Strict gun laws, and they are governed by democrats. Need I say more? And I repeat, yet again, the actual number of deaths by gun violence is so small, it's negligible. 5,100 gun homicides for the entire country. That's nothing. At least six times that number die in auto accidentsI just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
Where did you get that number?If that's true 4225000 American's got killed by guns. So give me the source of that number.Of all the deaths in America, in 2013, 1.3 percent were killed by guns. Once again, why are liberals making such a big stink about it?As g 5000 pointed out some of the basic facts were wrong too.FastStatsI just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?You admitted to not writing it yourself. I pointed out that there is a basic tremendous error in the thing you copied. Now I could look at the post in more detail. But if you copy someone who's trying to use math to prove something, doesn't it bother you that that person isn't able to do a simple percentage? It's something a reasonably adept third grader can do. So if a grownup makes that kind of error what credibility does he have?
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
So now we have a guy who not only can't do percentages but also can't look at the CDC website, the place were they collect this kind of data and get the correct numbers. I'm sensing a pattern here.
OH AND WHY AREN'T YOU LINKING YOUR ORIGINAL SOURCE?Ok. Gun laws in Australia - WikipediaAll right, genius. Perhaps you can show me just one example where gun laws reduce the number of homicides.If
If the CDC says there are 11000 homicides but the guy who can't do percentages says 5100, who do you think I'll believe? I also notice you still haven't linked your source.Once again, the majority of gun violence happens in just a handful of cities. These cities all have a few things in common. Strict gun laws, and they are governed by democrats. Need I say more? And I repeat, yet again, the actual number of deaths by gun violence is so small, it's negligible. 5,100 gun homicides for the entire country. That's nothing. At least six times that number die in auto accidentsI just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined by 47%. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for 77 per cent of these deaths, followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). The number of firearms suicides was in decline consistently from 1991 to 1998, two years after the introduction of firearm regulation.[34]
Suicide deaths using firearms more than halved in ten years, from 389 deaths in 1995, to 147 deaths in 2005.[35] This is equal to 7% of all suicides in 2005. Over the same period, suicides by hanging increased by over 52% from 699 in 1995 to 1068 in 2005.[36]
1.3 percent of 325000000 is 4225000Where did you get that number?If that's true 4225000 American's got killed by guns. So give me the source of that number.Of all the deaths in America, in 2013, 1.3 percent were killed by guns. Once again, why are liberals making such a big stink about it?As g 5000 pointed out some of the basic facts were wrong too.FastStatsI just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
So now we have a guy who not only can't do percentages but also can't look at the CDC website, the place were they collect this kind of data and get the correct numbers. I'm sensing a pattern here.
I only just started reading your list, and there's a glaring error right at the top:
65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
Suicide is almost always an impulse decision. Having a gun in the house allows one to act on that impulse immeditely, whereas 75% of people feeling suicidal will change their mind with time to weigh it.
You've probably heard the expression "sticking your head in the oven" to commit suicide. That's a reference to old, coal-gas stoves - the coal-gas would quickly asphyxiate someone who stuck their head into the oven, and it was a very popular way to commit suicide.
Guess what happened when people switched to gas or oil stoves? The suicide rate dropped by more than half.
You know what? I'm tired of your BS. The Second Amendment gives me the right to own a firearm. Leftists want to take away that right. Shoot, some of them are demanding that the government confiscate everyone's guns. Is that what you want? Guns are not the problem. It is liberal policies, such as gun control, which have been proven ineffective. Don't believe me? Tell me. How many homicides were there in Chicago last year?Ok. Gun laws in Australia - WikipediaAll right, genius. Perhaps you can show me just one example where gun laws reduce the number of homicides.If
If the CDC says there are 11000 homicides but the guy who can't do percentages says 5100, who do you think I'll believe? I also notice you still haven't linked your source.Once again, the majority of gun violence happens in just a handful of cities. These cities all have a few things in common. Strict gun laws, and they are governed by democrats. Need I say more? And I repeat, yet again, the actual number of deaths by gun violence is so small, it's negligible. 5,100 gun homicides for the entire country. That's nothing. At least six times that number die in auto accidentsI just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this?You don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.I just chalk it up to a typo. Anyway, guns aren't the problem. You cannot deny the fact that guns have nothing to do with violence. A gun is a tool. That's all it is. A gun cannot harm anyone unless someone with evil intent picks it up and uses it. Do you disagree? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that gun violence has one common denominator, no matter where it happens in America. Minorities. Especially blacks. And the majority of them are repeat offenders. To back this up, there is a town in America that has one of the highest gun per capita in the country. You do not even require a permit to carry concealed, yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. How do you explain this? BTW, they also have a very small percentage of minorities. Figured it out yet?
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined by 47%. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for 77 per cent of these deaths, followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). The number of firearms suicides was in decline consistently from 1991 to 1998, two years after the introduction of firearm regulation.[34]
Suicide deaths using firearms more than halved in ten years, from 389 deaths in 1995, to 147 deaths in 2005.[35] This is equal to 7% of all suicides in 2005. Over the same period, suicides by hanging increased by over 52% from 699 in 1995 to 1068 in 2005.[36]
I only just started reading your list, and there's a glaring error right at the top:
65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
Suicide is almost always an impulse decision. Having a gun in the house allows one to act on that impulse immeditely, whereas 75% of people feeling suicidal will change their mind with time to weigh it.
You've probably heard the expression "sticking your head in the oven" to commit suicide. That's a reference to old, coal-gas stoves - the coal-gas would quickly asphyxiate someone who stuck their head into the oven, and it was a very popular way to commit suicide.
Guess what happened when people switched to gas or oil stoves? The suicide rate dropped by more than half.
"Suicide is almost always an impulse decision. Having a gun in the house allows one to act on that impulse immeditely, whereas 75% of people feeling suicidal will change their mind with time to weigh it."
Actually cars are more readily available than guns for impulse suicide. One little twist of the wheel and you're outta here!
But the biggest flaw in your argument is that there is some mythical but acceptable law that would actually reduce the availability of firearms in the home. I think you're more likely to find a unicorn in the basement.
So, 325 million people died in 2013? That's news to me.1.3 percent of 325000000 is 4225000Where did you get that number?If that's true 4225000 American's got killed by guns. So give me the source of that number.Of all the deaths in America, in 2013, 1.3 percent were killed by guns. Once again, why are liberals making such a big stink about it?As g 5000 pointed out some of the basic facts were wrong too.FastStatsYou don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
So now we have a guy who not only can't do percentages but also can't look at the CDC website, the place were they collect this kind of data and get the correct numbers. I'm sensing a pattern here.
1.3 percent of 325000000 is 4225000Where did you get that number?If that's true 4225000 American's got killed by guns. So give me the source of that number.Of all the deaths in America, in 2013, 1.3 percent were killed by guns. Once again, why are liberals making such a big stink about it?As g 5000 pointed out some of the basic facts were wrong too.FastStatsYou don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
So now we have a guy who not only can't do percentages but also can't look at the CDC website, the place were they collect this kind of data and get the correct numbers. I'm sensing a pattern here.
In nearly all your posts you got yourself in more trouble. You never offered any sources, when questioned you didn't answer. I gave you simple math, I gave you examples, I offered sources. I talked to you in good faith even though you didn't offer me the same courtesy. And now faced with the simple fact that you can't win this argument you revert to the just because fallacy. RWNJ I wish you a good night and hope that maybe some of the mistakes you so publicly made today will cause you to think of the validity of your positions.You know what? I'm tired of your BS. The Second Amendment gives me the right to own a firearm. Leftists want to take away that right. Shoot, some of them are demanding that the government confiscate everyone's guns. Is that what you want? Guns are not the problem. It is liberal policies, such as gun control, which have been proven ineffective. Don't believe me? Tell me. How many homicides were there in Chicago last year?Ok. Gun laws in Australia - WikipediaAll right, genius. Perhaps you can show me just one example where gun laws reduce the number of homicides.If
If the CDC says there are 11000 homicides but the guy who can't do percentages says 5100, who do you think I'll believe? I also notice you still haven't linked your source.Once again, the majority of gun violence happens in just a handful of cities. These cities all have a few things in common. Strict gun laws, and they are governed by democrats. Need I say more? And I repeat, yet again, the actual number of deaths by gun violence is so small, it's negligible. 5,100 gun homicides for the entire country. That's nothing. At least six times that number die in auto accidentsYou don't push zero 4 extra times as a typo. I'll answer but I want you to do me the courtesy of linking your source.
-A gun is a tool. But it is a tool that's designed to be more effective then other tools for killing. Take away that tool and killing becomes less easy.
- As for your town. I could easily come up with a different reason. For instance crime is also related to affluence. The richer a community the better funded the law enforcement agency, the less the need exist to steal. That combination will push crime rates down.
- I don't deny that minorities are disproportionately represented in crime figures. On the other hand, do you think it is more likely they are inherently criminal or that they inherently have less wealth?
Btw as most of the conservatives on this board like to say, Europe is getting flooded by immigrants, on top of in the richer countries having an already sizable minority presence. Yet they don't have nearly as high ratio of fatalities using guns . If the problem is minorities but not guns why don't they have the same percentage gun fatalities.Comparing Gun Deaths by Country: The U.S. Is in a Different World
Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined by 47%. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for 77 per cent of these deaths, followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). The number of firearms suicides was in decline consistently from 1991 to 1998, two years after the introduction of firearm regulation.[34]
Suicide deaths using firearms more than halved in ten years, from 389 deaths in 1995, to 147 deaths in 2005.[35] This is equal to 7% of all suicides in 2005. Over the same period, suicides by hanging increased by over 52% from 699 in 1995 to 1068 in 2005.[36]
He's already run away to start another gun topic afresh.In nearly all your posts you got yourself in more trouble. You never offered any sources, when questioned you didn't answer. I gave you simple math, I gave you examples, I offered sources. I talked to you in good faith even though you didn't offer me the same courtesy. And now faced with the simple fact that you can't win this argument you revert to the just because fallacy. RWNJ I wish you a good night and hope that maybe some of the mistakes you so publicly made today will cause you to think of the validity of your positions.You know what? I'm tired of your BS. The Second Amendment gives me the right to own a firearm. Leftists want to take away that right. Shoot, some of them are demanding that the government confiscate everyone's guns. Is that what you want? Guns are not the problem. It is liberal policies, such as gun control, which have been proven ineffective. Don't believe me? Tell me. How many homicides were there in Chicago last year?Ok. Gun laws in Australia - WikipediaAll right, genius. Perhaps you can show me just one example where gun laws reduce the number of homicides.If
If the CDC says there are 11000 homicides but the guy who can't do percentages says 5100, who do you think I'll believe? I also notice you still haven't linked your source.Once again, the majority of gun violence happens in just a handful of cities. These cities all have a few things in common. Strict gun laws, and they are governed by democrats. Need I say more? And I repeat, yet again, the actual number of deaths by gun violence is so small, it's negligible. 5,100 gun homicides for the entire country. That's nothing. At least six times that number die in auto accidents
Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined by 47%. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for 77 per cent of these deaths, followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). The number of firearms suicides was in decline consistently from 1991 to 1998, two years after the introduction of firearm regulation.[34]
Suicide deaths using firearms more than halved in ten years, from 389 deaths in 1995, to 147 deaths in 2005.[35] This is equal to 7% of all suicides in 2005. Over the same period, suicides by hanging increased by over 52% from 699 in 1995 to 1068 in 2005.[36]
He can't help it. Most people would rather walk across broken glass barefoot then question themselves. I both pity and envy people like that. It has to be comforting to be able to just block out all information you don't want to hear. On the other hand he will die never have learned anything about himself.He's already run away to start another gun topic afresh.In nearly all your posts you got yourself in more trouble. You never offered any sources, when questioned you didn't answer. I gave you simple math, I gave you examples, I offered sources. I talked to you in good faith even though you didn't offer me the same courtesy. And now faced with the simple fact that you can't win this argument you revert to the just because fallacy. RWNJ I wish you a good night and hope that maybe some of the mistakes you so publicly made today will cause you to think of the validity of your positions.You know what? I'm tired of your BS. The Second Amendment gives me the right to own a firearm. Leftists want to take away that right. Shoot, some of them are demanding that the government confiscate everyone's guns. Is that what you want? Guns are not the problem. It is liberal policies, such as gun control, which have been proven ineffective. Don't believe me? Tell me. How many homicides were there in Chicago last year?Ok. Gun laws in Australia - WikipediaAll right, genius. Perhaps you can show me just one example where gun laws reduce the number of homicides.If
If the CDC says there are 11000 homicides but the guy who can't do percentages says 5100, who do you think I'll believe? I also notice you still haven't linked your source.
Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined by 47%. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for 77 per cent of these deaths, followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). The number of firearms suicides was in decline consistently from 1991 to 1998, two years after the introduction of firearm regulation.[34]
Suicide deaths using firearms more than halved in ten years, from 389 deaths in 1995, to 147 deaths in 2005.[35] This is equal to 7% of all suicides in 2005. Over the same period, suicides by hanging increased by over 52% from 699 in 1995 to 1068 in 2005.[36]
I only just started reading your list, and there's a glaring error right at the top:
Suicide is almost always an impulse decision. Having a gun in the house allows one to act on that impulse immeditely, whereas 75% of people feeling suicidal will change their mind with time to weigh it.
Suicide is almost always an impulse decision. Having a gun in the house allows one to act on that impulse immeditely, whereas 75% of people feeling suicidal will change their mind with time to weigh it.
You've probably heard the expression "sticking your head in the oven" to commit suicide. That's a reference to old, coal-gas stoves - the coal-gas would quickly asphyxiate someone who stuck their head into the oven, and it was a very popular way to commit suicide.
Guess what happened when people switched to gas or oil stoves? The suicide rate dropped by more than half.
"Suicide is almost always an impulse decision. Having a gun in the house allows one to act on that impulse immeditely, whereas 75% of people feeling suicidal will change their mind with time to weigh it."
Actually cars are more readily available than guns for impulse suicide. One little twist of the wheel and you're outta here!
But the biggest flaw in your argument is that there is some mythical but acceptable law that would actually reduce the availability of firearms in the home. I think you're more likely to find a unicorn in the basement.
I think you're reading something into my posts that isn't actually there.
I didn't suggest any sort of "law".
You're right I was in error here.So, 325 million people died in 2013? That's news to me.1.3 percent of 325000000 is 4225000Where did you get that number?If that's true 4225000 American's got killed by guns. So give me the source of that number.Of all the deaths in America, in 2013, 1.3 percent were killed by guns. Once again, why are liberals making such a big stink about it?As g 5000 pointed out some of the basic facts were wrong too.FastStats
So now we have a guy who not only can't do percentages but also can't look at the CDC website, the place were they collect this kind of data and get the correct numbers. I'm sensing a pattern here.
