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.
Posting charts without opinion is a waste of time.
The chart speaks for itself. Sorry about your hearing disabilities.
That's complete crap. No chart speaks for itself. Besides, I'm not talking to a chart, you're the one supposedly making your argument, not the chart. One source is never enough to prove anything, and it needs knowledge to read the chart properly anyway.
What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?
Do I really need to explain this?
Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.
For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.
With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.
As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.
Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.
For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.
Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.
So the question is, what was actually accomplished?
The chart speaks for itself. Sorry about your hearing disabilities.
That's complete crap. No chart speaks for itself. Besides, I'm not talking to a chart, you're the one supposedly making your argument, not the chart. One source is never enough to prove anything, and it needs knowledge to read the chart properly anyway.
What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?
Do I really need to explain this?
Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.
For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.
With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.
As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.
Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.
For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.
Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.
So the question is, what was actually accomplished?
Except gun crime didn't really go down in Britain...it spiked after the ban and simply returned to it's pre ban levels...that isn't going down, that is no effect....and now...gun crime in London is up 42%....
Do I really need to explain this?
Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.
For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.
With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.
As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.
Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.
For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.
Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.
So the question is, what was actually accomplished?
Ah, so if there is a gun ban, and crime rises straight away, it's proof the gun ban is bad. But if after 20 years crime is reduced, it proves nothing? Oh, come off it. You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.
Sexual assaults is a difficult one, because you really have to know what was going on in sexual assault laws at the time. It could merely be that they're getting more women to report sexual assault, it doesn't necessarily mean there was more sexual assault.
But then again the sexual assault capital of the US is Alaska, a state with lots of guns to people ratio. So, guns don't save people from sexual assault, they're more likely to be used to commit the act.
The assault weapon ban would more likely be designed to impact mass killings, rather than day to day killings. Has it had an impact? probably not, an assault rifle ban just means someone who wants to commit a mass killing will do so with other guns. However in the UK people would find it much harder to get guns, and so less likely to see a mass killing.
Yes indeed. Now they are using trucks for their mass killings.
Yes I can have it both ways. There was an immediate reaction to the gun ban after it started. It was six years later after it's peak before it started to go down, and 15 years later until it almost was down to the point before the ban.
Crime rates will always go up and down. There are many factors to crime. The economy is one thing. The less people working, the more crime you usually have. How many people being prosecuted and jailed is another. If a city or town hires more police officers, that helps as well. Harsher penalties for violent crime is a deterrent too.
The bottom line is if there is any evidence that gun bans have an effect, it's negative. It's not worth having them because it's not worth the time, money and effort. We don't even have to look overseas either. Just read Chicago news where guns are the most regulated in the country. It just doesn't work.
Or perhaps the only evidence you will accept is that evidence which goes your way.
Look, the UK and Australia have always had less guns. The gun bans in these countries weren't anything like a gun ban in the US because of the actual lack of guns in the first place. The UK gun ban wasn't even designed to prevent day to day killings with guns, because there weren't many in the first place.
But the simple facts are the number of murders in Australia and the UK are 4 times lower than the US.
Regulation of guns within a part of the country where guns are easily available in another part of the country is never going to be that effective either, it has to be nationwide to have a inpact.
Oh, you mean like with recreational narcotics? The same narcotics responsible for record overdose deaths in our country?
Guns are not the problem--people are the problem. You're never going to get rid of guns because criminals will always have guns. Unlike other countries, we are vary diverse, and some groups are much more violent than others.
If criminals are assaulting and killing people with guns, and you can't remove the guns from the criminal, the only logical thing to do is arm the victims.
That's complete crap. No chart speaks for itself. Besides, I'm not talking to a chart, you're the one supposedly making your argument, not the chart. One source is never enough to prove anything, and it needs knowledge to read the chart properly anyway.
What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?
Do I really need to explain this?
Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.
For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.
With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.
As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.
Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.
For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.
Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.
So the question is, what was actually accomplished?
Except gun crime didn't really go down in Britain...it spiked after the ban and simply returned to it's pre ban levels...that isn't going down, that is no effect....and now...gun crime in London is up 42%....
So the question remains, is it the people or the guns? If you take a city or town of non-violent people, give them all the guns they want, their crime rate would remain the same.
Posting charts without opinion is a waste of time.
The chart speaks for itself. Sorry about your hearing disabilities.
That's complete crap. No chart speaks for itself. Besides, I'm not talking to a chart, you're the one supposedly making your argument, not the chart. One source is never enough to prove anything, and it needs knowledge to read the chart properly anyway.
What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?
Do I really need to explain this?
Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.
For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.
With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.
As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.
Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.
For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.
Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.
So the question is, what was actually accomplished?
As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.
Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.
For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.
Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.
So the question is, what was actually accomplished?
Ah, so if there is a gun ban, and crime rises straight away, it's proof the gun ban is bad. But if after 20 years crime is reduced, it proves nothing? Oh, come off it. You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.
Sexual assaults is a difficult one, because you really have to know what was going on in sexual assault laws at the time. It could merely be that they're getting more women to report sexual assault, it doesn't necessarily mean there was more sexual assault.
But then again the sexual assault capital of the US is Alaska, a state with lots of guns to people ratio. So, guns don't save people from sexual assault, they're more likely to be used to commit the act.
The assault weapon ban would more likely be designed to impact mass killings, rather than day to day killings. Has it had an impact? probably not, an assault rifle ban just means someone who wants to commit a mass killing will do so with other guns. However in the UK people would find it much harder to get guns, and so less likely to see a mass killing.
Yes indeed. Now they are using trucks for their mass killings.
Yes I can have it both ways. There was an immediate reaction to the gun ban after it started. It was six years later after it's peak before it started to go down, and 15 years later until it almost was down to the point before the ban.
Crime rates will always go up and down. There are many factors to crime. The economy is one thing. The less people working, the more crime you usually have. How many people being prosecuted and jailed is another. If a city or town hires more police officers, that helps as well. Harsher penalties for violent crime is a deterrent too.
The bottom line is if there is any evidence that gun bans have an effect, it's negative. It's not worth having them because it's not worth the time, money and effort. We don't even have to look overseas either. Just read Chicago news where guns are the most regulated in the country. It just doesn't work.
Or perhaps the only evidence you will accept is that evidence which goes your way.
Look, the UK and Australia have always had less guns. The gun bans in these countries weren't anything like a gun ban in the US because of the actual lack of guns in the first place. The UK gun ban wasn't even designed to prevent day to day killings with guns, because there weren't many in the first place.
But the simple facts are the number of murders in Australia and the UK are 4 times lower than the US.
Regulation of guns within a part of the country where guns are easily available in another part of the country is never going to be that effective either, it has to be nationwide to have a inpact.
Oh, you mean like with recreational narcotics? The same narcotics responsible for record overdose deaths in our country?
Guns are not the problem--people are the problem. You're never going to get rid of guns because criminals will always have guns. Unlike other countries, we are vary diverse, and some groups are much more violent than others.
If criminals are assaulting and killing people with guns, and you can't remove the guns from the criminal, the only logical thing to do is arm the victims.
What are your arguments here? That people with guns aren't more dangerous than people without guns? That a problem with a gun isn't more of a problem than a problem without a gun? Oh, please. You come out with the "it's a people problem" but that doesn't say half the story, does it? Clearly people without guns are less of a problem.
As for the US being more of a violent place.... well... is it? Or is it just that people with guns seem to make it more of a problem?
Murders are 4 times higher. But other crimes aren't as high as this.... is it violence, or just it's easier to kill people? I mean, many on the right also believe that locking people up reduces crime, but it doesn't. The US is one of the few, if only, first world country that uses executions, and has a higher murder rate, when executions are supposed to deter people from murder, right? And places like Louisiana which lock a lot of people up, have higher murder and crime rates than those who don't.
So, there's something wrong with the logic here, isn't there?
Yeah, your logic at the end is the same problem that the whole of the US seems to suffer from. The "we can't solve this problem, so fuck it, let's just make it worse". Er... what? Surely the country with the highest GDP, the best space program and all of that can't be so fucking stupid, can it? Seems so.
What knowledge do you need to read a chart? What opinion might one have to add to the chart?
Do I really need to explain this?
Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.
For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.
With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.
As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.
Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.
For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.
Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.
So the question is, what was actually accomplished?
Except gun crime didn't really go down in Britain...it spiked after the ban and simply returned to it's pre ban levels...that isn't going down, that is no effect....and now...gun crime in London is up 42%....
So the question remains, is it the people or the guns? If you take a city or town of non-violent people, give them all the guns they want, their crime rate would remain the same.
Yes, but this ignores the problem of LIFE.
1/4 of all people, regardless of where in the world, have MENTAL PROBLEMS. People get made redundant, they get fired, they break up with their partners, they lose loved ones in accidents, they get bullied, and rage builds up inside of human beings. You can't have a city full of non-violent people, there is no such thing.
What makes Switzerland different to the US? Less problems. They deal with their problems, they have a lower murder rate than the UK, but a HIGHER gun murder rate..... go figure.
You're trying to simplify everything, and it's not working.
Do I really need to explain this?
Every source you need to ask yourself, who, what, why, when, where etc. Charts can be made up. Charts can manipulate.
For example if you had a chart comparing the US and UK violent crime, you'd have to know the difference between how violent crime statistics are taken.
With your chart you need to know what is going on in Australia during this period of time. You need to know when the chart was from. I mean, you posted stuff from 2005, then stuff from 2010, and all of it with a claim of "this proves that crime hasn't gone LOWER than when the gun ban was passed", and yet, it HAS GONE LOWER.
As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.
Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.
For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.
Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.
So the question is, what was actually accomplished?
Except gun crime didn't really go down in Britain...it spiked after the ban and simply returned to it's pre ban levels...that isn't going down, that is no effect....and now...gun crime in London is up 42%....
So the question remains, is it the people or the guns? If you take a city or town of non-violent people, give them all the guns they want, their crime rate would remain the same.
Yes, but this ignores the problem of LIFE.
1/4 of all people, regardless of where in the world, have MENTAL PROBLEMS. People get made redundant, they get fired, they break up with their partners, they lose loved ones in accidents, they get bullied, and rage builds up inside of human beings. You can't have a city full of non-violent people, there is no such thing.
What makes Switzerland different to the US? Less problems. They deal with their problems, they have a lower murder rate than the UK, but a HIGHER gun murder rate..... go figure.
You're trying to simplify everything, and it's not working.
So should I change that to a town of law biding citizens?
Most people with mental problems are not violent.
What are your arguments here? That people with guns aren't more dangerous than people without guns? That a problem with a gun isn't more of a problem than a problem without a gun? Oh, please. You come out with the "it's a people problem" but that doesn't say half the story, does it? Clearly people without guns are less of a problem.
As for the US being more of a violent place.... well... is it? Or is it just that people with guns seem to make it more of a problem?
Murders are 4 times higher. But other crimes aren't as high as this.... is it violence, or just it's easier to kill people? I mean, many on the right also believe that locking people up reduces crime, but it doesn't. The US is one of the few, if only, first world country that uses executions, and has a higher murder rate, when executions are supposed to deter people from murder, right? And places like Louisiana which lock a lot of people up, have higher murder and crime rates than those who don't.
Yeah, your logic at the end is the same problem that the whole of the US seems to suffer from. The "we can't solve this problem, so fuck it, let's just make it worse". Er... what? Surely the country with the highest GDP, the best space program and all of that can't be so fucking stupid, can it? Seems so.
What are your arguments here? That people with guns aren't more dangerous than people without guns? That a problem with a gun isn't more of a problem than a problem without a gun? Oh, please. You come out with the "it's a people problem" but that doesn't say half the story, does it? Clearly people without guns are less of a problem.
So you make some sort of unproven assumption that an object is what makes people violent? I would disagree with that. People are violent--not guns. Guns are merely a tool no different than an axe a baseball bat, a knife, or machete.
As for the US being more of a violent place.... well... is it? Or is it just that people with guns seem to make it more of a problem?
Parts of the US are violent places, yes. But do you really believe that taking guns away would make those places less violent?
This is the same kind of mentality that went around my state when we adopted CCW laws. None of the predictions came true. We are not like the wild, wild west, we do not have showdowns in the street, people are not using guns to settle road rage problems. The guns didn't cause people to do any of those things.
Murders are 4 times higher. But other crimes aren't as high as this.... is it violence, or just it's easier to kill people? I mean, many on the right also believe that locking people up reduces crime, but it doesn't. The US is one of the few, if only, first world country that uses executions, and has a higher murder rate, when executions are supposed to deter people from murder, right? And places like Louisiana which lock a lot of people up, have higher murder and crime rates than those who don't.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent because of all the red tape. In many places people are not actually executed until 10 to 18 years after sentencing. Of course it's not a deterrent. Are you really concerned about what might happen to you 18 years from today? Well most people aren't either, and that includes criminals.
The death penalty could be a deterrent if we did it the right way. But most Americans don't have the stomach for that. Plus we have liberals in this country who would start yet another march or riot. Liberal judges don't help any either.
Yeah, your logic at the end is the same problem that the whole of the US seems to suffer from. The "we can't solve this problem, so fuck it, let's just make it worse". Er... what? Surely the country with the highest GDP, the best space program and all of that can't be so fucking stupid, can it? Seems so.
Well we can't keep drugs out of the country, can we? We can't stop people coming here illegally, can we?
But you think that somehow if we were able to remove every gun from every citizen, they would no longer have a gun? Well you'd be correct, the law biding citizens wouldn't have a gun, but criminals will always find a way to get guns just like they do in NYC, California and Chicago.
What are your arguments here? That people with guns aren't more dangerous than people without guns? That a problem with a gun isn't more of a problem than a problem without a gun? Oh, please. You come out with the "it's a people problem" but that doesn't say half the story, does it? Clearly people without guns are less of a problem.
So you make some sort of unproven assumption that an object is what makes people violent? I would disagree with that. People are violent--not guns. Guns are merely a tool no different than an axe a baseball bat, a knife, or machete.
As for the US being more of a violent place.... well... is it? Or is it just that people with guns seem to make it more of a problem?
Parts of the US are violent places, yes. But do you really believe that taking guns away would make those places less violent?
This is the same kind of mentality that went around my state when we adopted CCW laws. None of the predictions came true. We are not like the wild, wild west, we do not have showdowns in the street, people are not using guns to settle road rage problems. The guns didn't cause people to do any of those things.
Murders are 4 times higher. But other crimes aren't as high as this.... is it violence, or just it's easier to kill people? I mean, many on the right also believe that locking people up reduces crime, but it doesn't. The US is one of the few, if only, first world country that uses executions, and has a higher murder rate, when executions are supposed to deter people from murder, right? And places like Louisiana which lock a lot of people up, have higher murder and crime rates than those who don't.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent because of all the red tape. In many places people are not actually executed until 10 to 18 years after sentencing. Of course it's not a deterrent. Are you really concerned about what might happen to you 18 years from today? Well most people aren't either, and that includes criminals.
The death penalty could be a deterrent if we did it the right way. But most Americans don't have the stomach for that. Plus we have liberals in this country who would start yet another march or riot. Liberal judges don't help any either.
Yeah, your logic at the end is the same problem that the whole of the US seems to suffer from. The "we can't solve this problem, so fuck it, let's just make it worse". Er... what? Surely the country with the highest GDP, the best space program and all of that can't be so fucking stupid, can it? Seems so.
Well we can't keep drugs out of the country, can we? We can't stop people coming here illegally, can we?
But you think that somehow if we were able to remove every gun from every citizen, they would no longer have a gun? Well you'd be correct, the law biding citizens wouldn't have a gun, but criminals will always find a way to get guns just like they do in NYC, California and Chicago.
No, I did not make an assumption, or a claim, or anything else for that matter that the gun makes them violent. I said it makes them more DANGEROUS.
However my point was that "non-violent" people can suddenly become violent. Not everyone, but it happens.
No, again, I did not say that guns made people less violent. It might make them less dangerous, and therefore make areas less violent, and make it easier to solve some of the problems.
So what is a deterrent? Seems prison isn't either... seeing as Louisiana has the highest prison population and the highest murder rate.
Do I think they'd get rid of guns from every person? No. But then UK isn't gun free, and yet still has a murder rate 1/4 of the US's murder rate.
As stated, the gun ban went into effect almost two decades before the level returned to before the gun ban. Now you tell me why a gun ban would take that long to show an actual effect.
Yes, there are many reasons for crime. But to say some policy had an effect at all, that needs to be proven. In other words, if a gun ban had any effect on crime, it would have taken a year or two at most. But after the ban, it showed that armed robberies increased dramatically.
For instance even though Australia had a decrease in robberies, they had an increase in sexual assaults. Gun crime went down in Great Britain, but knife assaults went up at the same time.
Here in the US, the assault weapons ban had no effect on gun crime. It continued to decrease as it has since the early 90's.
So the question is, what was actually accomplished?
Except gun crime didn't really go down in Britain...it spiked after the ban and simply returned to it's pre ban levels...that isn't going down, that is no effect....and now...gun crime in London is up 42%....
So the question remains, is it the people or the guns? If you take a city or town of non-violent people, give them all the guns they want, their crime rate would remain the same.
Yes, but this ignores the problem of LIFE.
1/4 of all people, regardless of where in the world, have MENTAL PROBLEMS. People get made redundant, they get fired, they break up with their partners, they lose loved ones in accidents, they get bullied, and rage builds up inside of human beings. You can't have a city full of non-violent people, there is no such thing.
What makes Switzerland different to the US? Less problems. They deal with their problems, they have a lower murder rate than the UK, but a HIGHER gun murder rate..... go figure.
You're trying to simplify everything, and it's not working.
So should I change that to a town of law biding citizens?
Most people with mental problems are not violent.
They're not. In fact many people who commit murders may not be violent, until they snap.
Or, we have the other side, we have violent people, and they're able to get guns. Why would you want violent people to get guns?
What are your arguments here? That people with guns aren't more dangerous than people without guns? That a problem with a gun isn't more of a problem than a problem without a gun? Oh, please. You come out with the "it's a people problem" but that doesn't say half the story, does it? Clearly people without guns are less of a problem.
So you make some sort of unproven assumption that an object is what makes people violent? I would disagree with that. People are violent--not guns. Guns are merely a tool no different than an axe a baseball bat, a knife, or machete.
As for the US being more of a violent place.... well... is it? Or is it just that people with guns seem to make it more of a problem?
Parts of the US are violent places, yes. But do you really believe that taking guns away would make those places less violent?
This is the same kind of mentality that went around my state when we adopted CCW laws. None of the predictions came true. We are not like the wild, wild west, we do not have showdowns in the street, people are not using guns to settle road rage problems. The guns didn't cause people to do any of those things.
Murders are 4 times higher. But other crimes aren't as high as this.... is it violence, or just it's easier to kill people? I mean, many on the right also believe that locking people up reduces crime, but it doesn't. The US is one of the few, if only, first world country that uses executions, and has a higher murder rate, when executions are supposed to deter people from murder, right? And places like Louisiana which lock a lot of people up, have higher murder and crime rates than those who don't.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent because of all the red tape. In many places people are not actually executed until 10 to 18 years after sentencing. Of course it's not a deterrent. Are you really concerned about what might happen to you 18 years from today? Well most people aren't either, and that includes criminals.
The death penalty could be a deterrent if we did it the right way. But most Americans don't have the stomach for that. Plus we have liberals in this country who would start yet another march or riot. Liberal judges don't help any either.
Yeah, your logic at the end is the same problem that the whole of the US seems to suffer from. The "we can't solve this problem, so fuck it, let's just make it worse". Er... what? Surely the country with the highest GDP, the best space program and all of that can't be so fucking stupid, can it? Seems so.
Well we can't keep drugs out of the country, can we? We can't stop people coming here illegally, can we?
But you think that somehow if we were able to remove every gun from every citizen, they would no longer have a gun? Well you'd be correct, the law biding citizens wouldn't have a gun, but criminals will always find a way to get guns just like they do in NYC, California and Chicago.
No, I did not make an assumption, or a claim, or anything else for that matter that the gun makes them violent. I said it makes them more DANGEROUS.
However my point was that "non-violent" people can suddenly become violent. Not everyone, but it happens.
No, again, I did not say that guns made people less violent. It might make them less dangerous, and therefore make areas less violent, and make it easier to solve some of the problems.
So what is a deterrent? Seems prison isn't either... seeing as Louisiana has the highest prison population and the highest murder rate.
Do I think they'd get rid of guns from every person? No. But then UK isn't gun free, and yet still has a murder rate 1/4 of the US's murder rate.
And the UK is not as multicultural as the US.
View attachment 121919
I think we could get much closer to their murder rate without blacks. So is it still the guns, or is it the people?
Whites have more access to guns because per capita, we have many less felons. Per capita, we have much more money to afford guns and ammo too.
I avoided this conversation because I didn't want to hear the racist crap from the left, but it's pretty telling why our murder rates are different than the UK, and it's not the guns, it's the people. And in this particular conversation, it needs to be said:
View attachment 121923
What are your arguments here? That people with guns aren't more dangerous than people without guns? That a problem with a gun isn't more of a problem than a problem without a gun? Oh, please. You come out with the "it's a people problem" but that doesn't say half the story, does it? Clearly people without guns are less of a problem.
So you make some sort of unproven assumption that an object is what makes people violent? I would disagree with that. People are violent--not guns. Guns are merely a tool no different than an axe a baseball bat, a knife, or machete.
As for the US being more of a violent place.... well... is it? Or is it just that people with guns seem to make it more of a problem?
Parts of the US are violent places, yes. But do you really believe that taking guns away would make those places less violent?
This is the same kind of mentality that went around my state when we adopted CCW laws. None of the predictions came true. We are not like the wild, wild west, we do not have showdowns in the street, people are not using guns to settle road rage problems. The guns didn't cause people to do any of those things.
Murders are 4 times higher. But other crimes aren't as high as this.... is it violence, or just it's easier to kill people? I mean, many on the right also believe that locking people up reduces crime, but it doesn't. The US is one of the few, if only, first world country that uses executions, and has a higher murder rate, when executions are supposed to deter people from murder, right? And places like Louisiana which lock a lot of people up, have higher murder and crime rates than those who don't.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent because of all the red tape. In many places people are not actually executed until 10 to 18 years after sentencing. Of course it's not a deterrent. Are you really concerned about what might happen to you 18 years from today? Well most people aren't either, and that includes criminals.
The death penalty could be a deterrent if we did it the right way. But most Americans don't have the stomach for that. Plus we have liberals in this country who would start yet another march or riot. Liberal judges don't help any either.
Yeah, your logic at the end is the same problem that the whole of the US seems to suffer from. The "we can't solve this problem, so fuck it, let's just make it worse". Er... what? Surely the country with the highest GDP, the best space program and all of that can't be so fucking stupid, can it? Seems so.
Well we can't keep drugs out of the country, can we? We can't stop people coming here illegally, can we?
But you think that somehow if we were able to remove every gun from every citizen, they would no longer have a gun? Well you'd be correct, the law biding citizens wouldn't have a gun, but criminals will always find a way to get guns just like they do in NYC, California and Chicago.
No, I did not make an assumption, or a claim, or anything else for that matter that the gun makes them violent. I said it makes them more DANGEROUS.
However my point was that "non-violent" people can suddenly become violent. Not everyone, but it happens.
No, again, I did not say that guns made people less violent. It might make them less dangerous, and therefore make areas less violent, and make it easier to solve some of the problems.
So what is a deterrent? Seems prison isn't either... seeing as Louisiana has the highest prison population and the highest murder rate.
Do I think they'd get rid of guns from every person? No. But then UK isn't gun free, and yet still has a murder rate 1/4 of the US's murder rate.
What are your arguments here? That people with guns aren't more dangerous than people without guns? That a problem with a gun isn't more of a problem than a problem without a gun? Oh, please. You come out with the "it's a people problem" but that doesn't say half the story, does it? Clearly people without guns are less of a problem.
So you make some sort of unproven assumption that an object is what makes people violent? I would disagree with that. People are violent--not guns. Guns are merely a tool no different than an axe a baseball bat, a knife, or machete.
As for the US being more of a violent place.... well... is it? Or is it just that people with guns seem to make it more of a problem?
Parts of the US are violent places, yes. But do you really believe that taking guns away would make those places less violent?
This is the same kind of mentality that went around my state when we adopted CCW laws. None of the predictions came true. We are not like the wild, wild west, we do not have showdowns in the street, people are not using guns to settle road rage problems. The guns didn't cause people to do any of those things.
Murders are 4 times higher. But other crimes aren't as high as this.... is it violence, or just it's easier to kill people? I mean, many on the right also believe that locking people up reduces crime, but it doesn't. The US is one of the few, if only, first world country that uses executions, and has a higher murder rate, when executions are supposed to deter people from murder, right? And places like Louisiana which lock a lot of people up, have higher murder and crime rates than those who don't.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent because of all the red tape. In many places people are not actually executed until 10 to 18 years after sentencing. Of course it's not a deterrent. Are you really concerned about what might happen to you 18 years from today? Well most people aren't either, and that includes criminals.
The death penalty could be a deterrent if we did it the right way. But most Americans don't have the stomach for that. Plus we have liberals in this country who would start yet another march or riot. Liberal judges don't help any either.
Yeah, your logic at the end is the same problem that the whole of the US seems to suffer from. The "we can't solve this problem, so fuck it, let's just make it worse". Er... what? Surely the country with the highest GDP, the best space program and all of that can't be so fucking stupid, can it? Seems so.
Well we can't keep drugs out of the country, can we? We can't stop people coming here illegally, can we?
But you think that somehow if we were able to remove every gun from every citizen, they would no longer have a gun? Well you'd be correct, the law biding citizens wouldn't have a gun, but criminals will always find a way to get guns just like they do in NYC, California and Chicago.
No, I did not make an assumption, or a claim, or anything else for that matter that the gun makes them violent. I said it makes them more DANGEROUS.
However my point was that "non-violent" people can suddenly become violent. Not everyone, but it happens.
No, again, I did not say that guns made people less violent. It might make them less dangerous, and therefore make areas less violent, and make it easier to solve some of the problems.
So what is a deterrent? Seems prison isn't either... seeing as Louisiana has the highest prison population and the highest murder rate.
Do I think they'd get rid of guns from every person? No. But then UK isn't gun free, and yet still has a murder rate 1/4 of the US's murder rate.
What are your arguments here? That people with guns aren't more dangerous than people without guns? That a problem with a gun isn't more of a problem than a problem without a gun? Oh, please. You come out with the "it's a people problem" but that doesn't say half the story, does it? Clearly people without guns are less of a problem.
So you make some sort of unproven assumption that an object is what makes people violent? I would disagree with that. People are violent--not guns. Guns are merely a tool no different than an axe a baseball bat, a knife, or machete.
As for the US being more of a violent place.... well... is it? Or is it just that people with guns seem to make it more of a problem?
Parts of the US are violent places, yes. But do you really believe that taking guns away would make those places less violent?
This is the same kind of mentality that went around my state when we adopted CCW laws. None of the predictions came true. We are not like the wild, wild west, we do not have showdowns in the street, people are not using guns to settle road rage problems. The guns didn't cause people to do any of those things.
Murders are 4 times higher. But other crimes aren't as high as this.... is it violence, or just it's easier to kill people? I mean, many on the right also believe that locking people up reduces crime, but it doesn't. The US is one of the few, if only, first world country that uses executions, and has a higher murder rate, when executions are supposed to deter people from murder, right? And places like Louisiana which lock a lot of people up, have higher murder and crime rates than those who don't.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent because of all the red tape. In many places people are not actually executed until 10 to 18 years after sentencing. Of course it's not a deterrent. Are you really concerned about what might happen to you 18 years from today? Well most people aren't either, and that includes criminals.
The death penalty could be a deterrent if we did it the right way. But most Americans don't have the stomach for that. Plus we have liberals in this country who would start yet another march or riot. Liberal judges don't help any either.
Yeah, your logic at the end is the same problem that the whole of the US seems to suffer from. The "we can't solve this problem, so fuck it, let's just make it worse". Er... what? Surely the country with the highest GDP, the best space program and all of that can't be so fucking stupid, can it? Seems so.
Well we can't keep drugs out of the country, can we? We can't stop people coming here illegally, can we?
But you think that somehow if we were able to remove every gun from every citizen, they would no longer have a gun? Well you'd be correct, the law biding citizens wouldn't have a gun, but criminals will always find a way to get guns just like they do in NYC, California and Chicago.
No, I did not make an assumption, or a claim, or anything else for that matter that the gun makes them violent. I said it makes them more DANGEROUS.
However my point was that "non-violent" people can suddenly become violent. Not everyone, but it happens.
No, again, I did not say that guns made people less violent. It might make them less dangerous, and therefore make areas less violent, and make it easier to solve some of the problems.
So what is a deterrent? Seems prison isn't either... seeing as Louisiana has the highest prison population and the highest murder rate.
Do I think they'd get rid of guns from every person? No. But then UK isn't gun free, and yet still has a murder rate 1/4 of the US's murder rate.
And the UK is not as multicultural as the US.
View attachment 121919
I think we could get much closer to their murder rate without blacks. So is it still the guns, or is it the people?
Whites have more access to guns because per capita, we have many less felons. Per capita, we have much more money to afford guns and ammo too.
I avoided this conversation because I didn't want to hear the racist crap from the left, but it's pretty telling why our murder rates are different than the UK, and it's not the guns, it's the people. And in this particular conversation, it needs to be said:
View attachment 121923
Those words gun buyback cracks me up. Like the guns belonged to the government originally and now they want them back.
Or that people had the choice of whether to sell them their gun or not.
But right after they banned the guns, look at the chart when robberies took a huge hike. The criminals didn't sell their guns to the government. They kept their guns and the citizens became easy targets.
Even though armed robberies declined through the years, after almost two decades, the level only returned back to where it was before the ban took place.
Or lower, as in the chart you presented shows that they are LOWER, murders are LOWER, robberies are LOWER.
No, the chart shows the same level. Need me to post it again? And the chart I posted was armed robberies, but if you push it, I'll dig up more for robberies of all kinds and murders.
Ah, yes, because you posted a chart that stopped 7 years ago.
4510.0 - Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia, 2015
"The number of Robbery victims has decreased by 39% since the beginning of the time series in 2010."
And so, in 20 years, the number of robberies has dropped to BELOW what it was, the number of murders has dropped BELOW what it was. But as long as you keep using convenient statistics, you can show whatever you like, right?
What are your arguments here? That people with guns aren't more dangerous than people without guns? That a problem with a gun isn't more of a problem than a problem without a gun? Oh, please. You come out with the "it's a people problem" but that doesn't say half the story, does it? Clearly people without guns are less of a problem.
So you make some sort of unproven assumption that an object is what makes people violent? I would disagree with that. People are violent--not guns. Guns are merely a tool no different than an axe a baseball bat, a knife, or machete.
As for the US being more of a violent place.... well... is it? Or is it just that people with guns seem to make it more of a problem?
Parts of the US are violent places, yes. But do you really believe that taking guns away would make those places less violent?
This is the same kind of mentality that went around my state when we adopted CCW laws. None of the predictions came true. We are not like the wild, wild west, we do not have showdowns in the street, people are not using guns to settle road rage problems. The guns didn't cause people to do any of those things.
Murders are 4 times higher. But other crimes aren't as high as this.... is it violence, or just it's easier to kill people? I mean, many on the right also believe that locking people up reduces crime, but it doesn't. The US is one of the few, if only, first world country that uses executions, and has a higher murder rate, when executions are supposed to deter people from murder, right? And places like Louisiana which lock a lot of people up, have higher murder and crime rates than those who don't.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent because of all the red tape. In many places people are not actually executed until 10 to 18 years after sentencing. Of course it's not a deterrent. Are you really concerned about what might happen to you 18 years from today? Well most people aren't either, and that includes criminals.
The death penalty could be a deterrent if we did it the right way. But most Americans don't have the stomach for that. Plus we have liberals in this country who would start yet another march or riot. Liberal judges don't help any either.
Yeah, your logic at the end is the same problem that the whole of the US seems to suffer from. The "we can't solve this problem, so fuck it, let's just make it worse". Er... what? Surely the country with the highest GDP, the best space program and all of that can't be so fucking stupid, can it? Seems so.
Well we can't keep drugs out of the country, can we? We can't stop people coming here illegally, can we?
But you think that somehow if we were able to remove every gun from every citizen, they would no longer have a gun? Well you'd be correct, the law biding citizens wouldn't have a gun, but criminals will always find a way to get guns just like they do in NYC, California and Chicago.
No, I did not make an assumption, or a claim, or anything else for that matter that the gun makes them violent. I said it makes them more DANGEROUS.
However my point was that "non-violent" people can suddenly become violent. Not everyone, but it happens.
No, again, I did not say that guns made people less violent. It might make them less dangerous, and therefore make areas less violent, and make it easier to solve some of the problems.
So what is a deterrent? Seems prison isn't either... seeing as Louisiana has the highest prison population and the highest murder rate.
Do I think they'd get rid of guns from every person? No. But then UK isn't gun free, and yet still has a murder rate 1/4 of the US's murder rate.
And the UK is not as multicultural as the US.
View attachment 121919
I think we could get much closer to their murder rate without blacks. So is it still the guns, or is it the people?
Whites have more access to guns because per capita, we have many less felons. Per capita, we have much more money to afford guns and ammo too.
I avoided this conversation because I didn't want to hear the racist crap from the left, but it's pretty telling why our murder rates are different than the UK, and it's not the guns, it's the people. And in this particular conversation, it needs to be said:
View attachment 121923
The U.K. is becomming more multi cultural and the minorities are the ones driving the drug gangs and gun crime....and the social welfare system has reached the point where you have teenagers stabbing each other to death in greater numbers...
What are your arguments here? That people with guns aren't more dangerous than people without guns? That a problem with a gun isn't more of a problem than a problem without a gun? Oh, please. You come out with the "it's a people problem" but that doesn't say half the story, does it? Clearly people without guns are less of a problem.
So you make some sort of unproven assumption that an object is what makes people violent? I would disagree with that. People are violent--not guns. Guns are merely a tool no different than an axe a baseball bat, a knife, or machete.
As for the US being more of a violent place.... well... is it? Or is it just that people with guns seem to make it more of a problem?
Parts of the US are violent places, yes. But do you really believe that taking guns away would make those places less violent?
This is the same kind of mentality that went around my state when we adopted CCW laws. None of the predictions came true. We are not like the wild, wild west, we do not have showdowns in the street, people are not using guns to settle road rage problems. The guns didn't cause people to do any of those things.
Murders are 4 times higher. But other crimes aren't as high as this.... is it violence, or just it's easier to kill people? I mean, many on the right also believe that locking people up reduces crime, but it doesn't. The US is one of the few, if only, first world country that uses executions, and has a higher murder rate, when executions are supposed to deter people from murder, right? And places like Louisiana which lock a lot of people up, have higher murder and crime rates than those who don't.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent because of all the red tape. In many places people are not actually executed until 10 to 18 years after sentencing. Of course it's not a deterrent. Are you really concerned about what might happen to you 18 years from today? Well most people aren't either, and that includes criminals.
The death penalty could be a deterrent if we did it the right way. But most Americans don't have the stomach for that. Plus we have liberals in this country who would start yet another march or riot. Liberal judges don't help any either.
Yeah, your logic at the end is the same problem that the whole of the US seems to suffer from. The "we can't solve this problem, so fuck it, let's just make it worse". Er... what? Surely the country with the highest GDP, the best space program and all of that can't be so fucking stupid, can it? Seems so.
Well we can't keep drugs out of the country, can we? We can't stop people coming here illegally, can we?
But you think that somehow if we were able to remove every gun from every citizen, they would no longer have a gun? Well you'd be correct, the law biding citizens wouldn't have a gun, but criminals will always find a way to get guns just like they do in NYC, California and Chicago.
No, I did not make an assumption, or a claim, or anything else for that matter that the gun makes them violent. I said it makes them more DANGEROUS.
However my point was that "non-violent" people can suddenly become violent. Not everyone, but it happens.
No, again, I did not say that guns made people less violent. It might make them less dangerous, and therefore make areas less violent, and make it easier to solve some of the problems.
So what is a deterrent? Seems prison isn't either... seeing as Louisiana has the highest prison population and the highest murder rate.
Do I think they'd get rid of guns from every person? No. But then UK isn't gun free, and yet still has a murder rate 1/4 of the US's murder rate.
And the UK is not as multicultural as the US.
View attachment 121919
I think we could get much closer to their murder rate without blacks. So is it still the guns, or is it the people?
Whites have more access to guns because per capita, we have many less felons. Per capita, we have much more money to afford guns and ammo too.
I avoided this conversation because I didn't want to hear the racist crap from the left, but it's pretty telling why our murder rates are different than the UK, and it's not the guns, it's the people. And in this particular conversation, it needs to be said:
View attachment 121923
