Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[Rct_Tsoul]

In 2007, the US had 10,000 more homicides than the UK. It's a convincing statistic to those who are not ideologues.

You babbled this before, and ran away with your tail tucked under when challenged.

Well she isn't being very forthcoming and honest as I am as I state the following:
We need to take away guns so that we can be in complete total control of all situations without fear of recourse, and lay it down on the American sheeple just like Mr. Senior El-Guwappo does it ..... like in this video:
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJsnJnN5l9E"]Total Control[/ame]

 

[candycorn]

Those are the per capita numbers. The original data was something like 15,000 homicides here vs. 940 homicides there.

If you say so but you still misrepresented the difference as an absolute number not a per capita number.

What should it be then?

UK Murder rate in 2007:

There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

US Homicide Rate in 2007: 14,831

Expanded Homicide Data Table 1 - Crime in the United States 2007

Obviously it's a convincing statistic that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.

Still true.

 

[Missourian]

If you say so but you still misrepresented the difference as an absolute number not a per capita number.

What should it be then?

UK Murder rate in 2007:

There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

US Homicide Rate in 2007: 14,831

Expanded Homicide Data Table 1 - Crime in the United States 2007

Obviously it's a convincing statistic that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.

Still true.

What was their homicide rate compared to ours BEFORE they enacted their gun bans in 1997?

That number tells the tale.


Edit -- Hell, I'm a helpful guy...here is the chart. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9411649/Graphic-how-the-murder-rate-has-fallen.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you say so but you still misrepresented the difference as an absolute number not a per capita number.

What should it be then?

UK Murder rate in 2007:

There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

US Homicide Rate in 2007: 14,831

Expanded Homicide Data Table 1 - Crime in the United States 2007

Obviously it's a convincing statistic that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.

Still true.

Thank you for continuing to help prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty. Please keep up the good work.

 

[candycorn]

What should it be then?

UK Murder rate in 2007:

US Homicide Rate in 2007: 14,831

Expanded Homicide Data Table 1 - Crime in the United States 2007

Obviously it's a convincing statistic that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.

Still true.

What was their homicide rate compared to ours BEFORE they enacted their gun bans in 1997?

That number tells the tale.


Edit -- Hell, I'm a helpful guy...here is the chart. Graphic: how the murder rate has fallen - Telegraph

Obviously they are doing something very right and we're doing something wrong when it comes to firearms.

I wonder what it could be???

 

[Missourian]

Still true.

What was their homicide rate compared to ours BEFORE they enacted their gun bans in 1997?

That number tells the tale.


Edit -- Hell, I'm a helpful guy...here is the chart. Graphic: how the murder rate has fallen - Telegraph

Obviously they are doing something very right and we're doing something wrong when it comes to firearms.

I wonder what it could be???

Did you even look at the chart?

 

[candycorn]

What was their homicide rate compared to ours BEFORE they enacted their gun bans in 1997?

That number tells the tale.


Edit -- Hell, I'm a helpful guy...here is the chart. Graphic: how the murder rate has fallen - Telegraph

Obviously they are doing something very right and we're doing something wrong when it comes to firearms.

I wonder what it could be???

Did you even look at the chart?

Sure..

Do you know what 10,000 - 941 is? About 9,000 more killings in 2007 than they had in the UK...

Obviously they are doing something right and we're doing something wrong. But please tell us more about before the gun ban.

 

[Missourian]

Here you go, I'll spell it out for you.

Your contention:

In 2007, the US had 10,000 more homicides than the UK. It's a convincing statistic to those who are not ideologues.

The U.K. enacted it's gun ban in 1997.

In 1990 there were 725 homicides in the U.K., and this was PRE-BAN.

There were 23,440 murders in the U.S. in 1990.

So, let's connect the dots here...the U.K. had far less murders than the U.S. BEFORE they banned handguns.


Also, and far more telling, let's take a look at your stats:

The original data was something like 15,000 homicides here vs. 940 homicides there.

So, since 1990, in the U.S. with expansion of gun rights and Conceal Carry, our homicide totals have been REDUCED by almost 9,000 deaths per year (2007 = 15,000; 1990 = 23,440).

While conversely, in the U.K. with a ban on handguns and very strict gun control, their homicide totals INCREASED by 20% (2007 = 921; 1990 = 725).

In other words, it looks to the informed observer armed with all the facts as though the U.K. is obviously doing something very, very WRONG...

 

[candycorn]

Here you go, I'll spell it out for you.

Your contention:

In 2007, the US had 10,000 more homicides than the UK. It's a convincing statistic to those who are not ideologues.

The U.K. enacted it's gun ban in 1997.

In 1990 there were 725 homicides in the U.K., and this was PRE-BAN.

There were 23,440 murders in the U.S. in 1990.

So, let's connect the dots here...the U.K. had far less murders than the U.S. BEFORE they banned handguns.


Also, and far more telling, let's take a look at your stats:

The original data was something like 15,000 homicides here vs. 940 homicides there.

So, since 1990, in the U.S. with expansion of gun rights and Conceal Carry, our homicide totals have been REDUCED by almost 9,000 deaths per year (2007 = 15,000; 1990 = 23,440).

While conversely, in the U.K. with a ban on handguns and very strict gun control, their homicide totals INCREASED by 20% (2007 = 921; 1990 = 725).

In other words, it looks to the informed observer armed with all the facts as though the U.K. is obviously doing something very, very WRONG...

So, to quote you, We had 23,440 compared to the UK having 725...and you're thinking we are doing it right?

Are you a big fan of killing or something?

 

[toshiro]

1: For all firearms, limit magazine size to 6 shots. Probably 3 for shotguns.
2: Limit the scope/effect of a mass killing
3: Slows down the ability of a renegade shooter to do havoc, especially to an unsuspecting, unarmed group of people.
4: For one, all laws can be changed and have been. So the 'law abiding' are suceptible to having the goal posts moved. Having said that, I don't propose banning any type of specific weapon(s). It doesn't violate the wording of the 2nd amendment, if that's what you're after.
5: Up for your judgement.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The one thing you can always find when you look for it is a Justification. Trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be is pointless.

We both understand that you cannot meet the challenge offered in the OP - so good on you to have the sense to not even try.

So did anyone convince you yet?

 

[candycorn]

1: For all firearms, limit magazine size to 6 shots. Probably 3 for shotguns.
2: Limit the scope/effect of a mass killing
3: Slows down the ability of a renegade shooter to do havoc, especially to an unsuspecting, unarmed group of people.
4: For one, all laws can be changed and have been. So the 'law abiding' are suceptible to having the goal posts moved. Having said that, I don't propose banning any type of specific weapon(s). It doesn't violate the wording of the 2nd amendment, if that's what you're after.
5: Up for your judgement.

I'd add in hefty taxes for firearms and forcing gun owners to take out liability insurance polices for each gun to simply limit the amount sold which will limit the amount made which will limit the killing; eventually.

 

[Missourian]

Here you go, I'll spell it out for you.

Your contention:

In 2007, the US had 10,000 more homicides than the UK. It's a convincing statistic to those who are not ideologues.

The U.K. enacted it's gun ban in 1997.

In 1990 there were 725 homicides in the U.K., and this was PRE-BAN.

There were 23,440 murders in the U.S. in 1990.

So, let's connect the dots here...the U.K. had far less murders than the U.S. BEFORE they banned handguns.


Also, and far more telling, let's take a look at your stats:

The original data was something like 15,000 homicides here vs. 940 homicides there.

So, since 1990, in the U.S. with expansion of gun rights and Conceal Carry, our homicide totals have been REDUCED by almost 9,000 deaths per year (2007 = 15,000; 1990 = 23,440).

While conversely, in the U.K. with a ban on handguns and very strict gun control, their homicide totals INCREASED by 20% (2007 = 921; 1990 = 725).

In other words, it looks to the informed observer armed with all the facts as though the U.K. is obviously doing something very, very WRONG...

So, to quote you, We had 23,440 compared to the UK having 725...and you're thinking we are doing it right?

Are you a big fan of killing or something?

At that time, we were both doing the same thing.

That's why it is stupid to compare two different cultures...you end up with egg on your face.

I really had hoped you would be intellectual honest...I suppose I'll have to learn to live with my disappointment.

I thought you were a liberal who could put facts above emotion and agenda...apparently not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1: For all firearms, limit magazine size to 6 shots. Probably 3 for shotguns.
2: Limit the scope/effect of a mass killing
3: Slows down the ability of a renegade shooter to do havoc, especially to an unsuspecting, unarmed group of people.

Your flaw:
If a group of people are unsoecuting and, especlaly, unarmed, it doesn't matter how many times someone has to spend 2-3 seconds to change a magazine - they can still shoot as many people as they might choose because the unsuspecting and unarmed have no way to make him stop.

Futher, unless you plan to confiscate all magazines that exceed this limit, as well as all shotguns that can hold more than three rounds, your suggestion will have no effect whatsoever as these weapons/magazines are still easily attainable.

4: For one, all laws can be changed and have been. So the 'law abiding' are suceptible to having the goal posts moved. Having said that, I don't propose banning any type of specific weapon(s). It doesn't violate the wording of the 2nd amendment, if that's what you're after.

Hi capacity magazines are an intergral part of the weapons intended to be protected by the 2nd and so to ban them violates the 2nd every bit as much as banning the weapons themselves.

5: Up for your judgement.

Respectfully, you have argued from ignorance, as noted above.
I applaud you for your efforts - its good to see that at least someone had the stones to give it a go.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obviously they are doing something very right and we're doing something wrong when it comes to firearms.

I wonder what it could be???

Did you even look at the chart?

Sure..

Do you know what 10,000 - 941 is? About 9,000 more killings in 2007 than they had in the UK...

Obviously they are doing something right and we're doing something wrong. But please tell us more about before the gun ban.

Thank you for contuuing to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1: For all firearms, limit magazine size to 6 shots. Probably 3 for shotguns.
2: Limit the scope/effect of a mass killing
3: Slows down the ability of a renegade shooter to do havoc, especially to an unsuspecting, unarmed group of people.
4: For one, all laws can be changed and have been. So the 'law abiding' are suceptible to having the goal posts moved. Having said that, I don't propose banning any type of specific weapon(s). It doesn't violate the wording of the 2nd amendment, if that's what you're after.
5: Up for your judgement.

I'd add in hefty taxes for firearms and forcing gun owners to take out liability insurance polices for each gun to simply limit the amount sold which will limit the amount made which will limit the killing; eventually.

More proof for my point. Thank you.

 

[candycorn]

Here you go, I'll spell it out for you.

Your contention:




The U.K. enacted it's gun ban in 1997.

In 1990 there were 725 homicides in the U.K., and this was PRE-BAN.

There were 23,440 murders in the U.S. in 1990.

So, let's connect the dots here...the U.K. had far less murders than the U.S. BEFORE they banned handguns.


Also, and far more telling, let's take a look at your stats:



So, since 1990, in the U.S. with expansion of gun rights and Conceal Carry, our homicide totals have been REDUCED by almost 9,000 deaths per year (2007 = 15,000; 1990 = 23,440).

While conversely, in the U.K. with a ban on handguns and very strict gun control, their homicide totals INCREASED by 20% (2007 = 921; 1990 = 725).

In other words, it looks to the informed observer armed with all the facts as though the U.K. is obviously doing something very, very WRONG...

So, to quote you, We had 23,440 compared to the UK having 725...and you're thinking we are doing it right?

Are you a big fan of killing or something?

At that time, we were both doing the same thing.

That's why it is stupid to compare two different cultures...you end up with egg on your face.

I really had hoped you would be intellectual honest...I suppose I'll have to learn to live with my disappointment.

I thought you were a liberal who could put facts above emotion and agenda...apparently not.

Okay, what is different about our cultures that makes us more homicidal?

 

[toshiro]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your flaw:
If a group of people are unsoecuting and, especlaly, unarmed, it doesn't matter how many times someone has to spend 2-3 seconds to change a magazine - they can still shoot as many people as they might choose because the unsuspecting and unarmed have no way to make him stop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I beg to differ. If everyone is aware of the paradigm change due to mag limitation, their reaction will change during an event. Pre-9/11, anytime a guy with a gun or weapon tried to take over a bus, plane or whatever, everyone let him. He would likely negotiate for some stupid cause using these innocent people as leverage. The terrorists, largely Islamic, took the gloves off and changed the rules. Everyone knows this now. Numerous stories have been told were some guy tried to do a take down on a bus/plane etc. A half dozen civilians and maybe even a stewardess are quick to jump up and take the guy out.

Now, next time an Aurora Theater event happens, it's one guy against 50. Changing mags isn't fast in a chaotic situation like that. There will be 2 to 3 crazy, adrenaline hopped up guys who are hiding, timing your reload ready to take you down. This is a lot harder to do when the guy has a seemingly unlimited supply of bullets. You're giving the unarmed movie goers a chance at this point. Even the most liberal MoFo will beat your ass if you're trying to kill him. In less than 2-3 seconds. To boot, it would also slow down the massacre, giving armed support time to show up.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Futher, unless you plan to confiscate all magazines that exceed this limit, as well as all shotguns that can hold more than three rounds, your suggestion will have no effect whatsoever as these weapons/magazines are still easily attainable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am talking about getting rid of all the magazines. If you don't allow me to do that, what's the point? In your theoretical throw down, am I allowed to make a law that would work and be enforceable? I'm following your prescribed rules.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi capacity magazines are an intergral part of the weapons intended to be protected by the 2nd and so to ban them violates the 2nd every bit as much as banning the weapons themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You say they're an integral part of the weapon, but I find that to be merely your opinion. Glocks used to hold 16 shots. A 10 shot Glock still works fine. If you mean, '30 shots in an assault rifle that's what it was built for'. I see that. But the weapon was designed for a soldier's needs. My law says that civilians don't have soldiers needs. Six shots should suffice for a civilian.

And I don't feel my law violates the 2nd Amendment:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

You should probably be complaining to those who are denying you the opportunity to own an RPG or even a cannon. You get to keep your weapons under my law!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote:
5: Up for your judgement.
I applaud you for your efforts - its good to see that at least someone had the stones to give it a go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks

 

[M14 Shooter]

I beg to differ. If everyone is aware of the paradigm change due to mag limitation, their reaction will change during an event.

You suppose this, but you cannot show this - therefore you cannot use it to suppoort your position.
Fact is that in all the relevant shootings, the shooter is rarely, if ever, confronted during a mag change, simply because it takes so little time to do - and while you might say that he cannot stop all 50 people with a 6-rd mag, 6-12 people have to be willing to be the first to get shot. This does not happen among the unexpecting and the unarmed.

I am talking about getting rid of all the magazines. If you don't allow me to do that, what's the point? In your theoretical throw down, am I allowed to make a law that would work and be enforceable? I'm following your prescribed rules.

So, you DO plan to confiscate all the 7+ round magazines and 4+ round shotguns.
How do you plan to do this, and how does doing so not violate the constitution?

You say they're an integral part of the weapon, but I find that to be merely your opinion.Glocks used to hold 16 shots. A 10 shot Glock still works fine. If you mean, '30 shots in an assault rifle that's what it was built for'. I see that. But the weapon was designed for a soldier's needs.

The very best example of a weapon protected by the 2nd in the AR-15 rfle and the M9 handgun. The military issues these (or similar) weapons w/ 30- and 15-rd magazines because they are necessary for these weapons to be effective in their intended role - that is, they are an integral part of those weapons. As such, it is imposible to argue that these magazines are also not similarly integral to the civilain versions.

Remember: the 2nd protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms so, among other things, that the militia will always have access to weapons useful in mission to assist/resist the standing army whenever called to do so. if the military issues 30-rd magazines an an intergral part of the M16, then the 30-rd magazine is an equally intergral part of the AR-15.

And I don't feel my law violates the 2nd Amendment:

How does forcibly taking away weapons protected by the constitution not violate it?
how does faoribly taking away an item that is an intergral part of a weapon protected by the constitution not violate it?

 

[Missourian]

So, to quote you, We had 23,440 compared to the UK having 725...and you're thinking we are doing it right?

Are you a big fan of killing or something?

At that time, we were both doing the same thing.

That's why it is stupid to compare two different cultures...you end up with egg on your face.

I really had hoped you would be intellectual honest...I suppose I'll have to learn to live with my disappointment.

I thought you were a liberal who could put facts above emotion and agenda...apparently not.

Okay, what is different about our cultures that makes us more homicidal?

THAT is the question we should be asking.

It leads directly back to the point I was trying to make before...why are 50% of our murders committed in 63 cities that contain 16% of our population.