What are your chances...?

[Skull Pilot]

Our murder rate in 1950 was the same as it is today and it was about 4 times higher than the UK then too

You cannot ignore that the US is NOT the UK and that we have very different socioeconomic and cultural situations

Yeah, and the US had guns then too, and the UK didn't then too. So what do you think the chances are that guns are a significant problem in the US?

The problem is the US is not the UK, nor is it any of the other first world countries which ALL have a much lower murder rate than the US, mostly around the 1/4 mark. The "The US isn't the UK" doesn't work when you see that ALL FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES have a lower rate. The "It's the Americas" doesn't work either, seeing as Canada has a much lower rate too.

Really? There were no guns in the UK in the 50's?

Are you high?

The UK passed their very harsh gun laws in the late 60s and the murder rate climbed through the 90s only to fall back to the level it is today

Just like in the US

Americans are not British. We have very different personality traits and not too mention a very different society

Okay, the UK had guns back then, and it has guns now. The point being that they don't have many now and didn't have many then, certainly ordinary people did not go out and buy a gun either in the 1950s or today.

No, the UK is not the US. I've lived in both countries, and I've lived in Spain, Germany, Austria among others, and these countries are far more different to the UK than the US is. It does not in any way account for a murder rate that is 4 times higher. Canadians are far closer to the US than any other country in terms of personality, and yet... Canada has a murder rate of 1.4 compared to the US's rate of around 4 per 100,000 people. So.... so.... so what?

SO what? I really don't care that criminals kill each other to the extent they do here.

All I care about is that law abiding people have the right to defend themselves from the criminals that we don't lock up

But British people have the right to defend themselves too. Just not necessarily with a gun. But then hey, why do they need a gun? They're less likely to be killed anyway.

The problem is you've gone through all the arguments, been found wanting, then you come back with the simplistic "I want a gun", but you don't want to see the damage that guns have on your society, and that actually having a gun makes things WORSE than if you couldn't get a gun.

It's not guns that damage society it's criminals who use guns in the commission of crimes.

you want to ignore the fact that 3/4 or gun shot victims and 3/4 of all shooters have prior criminal histories, or that taking gang murders out of the equation lowers our murder rate to about 3000 per year

It's just not true that most murders are committed by previously law abiding people who happen to own guns who went berserk one day

we don't have a gun problem. We have other problems that contribute to our high crime rate

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah, so you label them as criminals, so they don't count? Put all the problems into one corner and ignore them. When they rise up into your face all you need to do is blame it on them being black, or something, isn't that what people do to ignore the problems?

Why would you want to live in a society where this is happening?

It's a fact that most people involved in shootings have long criminal histories
If we kept them off the streets rather than letting them out the murder rate would plummet but you don't want to keep people who commit crimes with guns in jail do you?

Yes, maybe it is. That doesn't mean it's the person who are getting killed are always "not so innocent". How many people who aren't involved in crime get caught up in this shit? Oh, we don't know, they don't do stats for that, but I'm betting it's higher than the UK murder rate for those innocents killed, possibly 4 times higher again.

You say "if we kept them off the streets", er... I can quash that argument easily.

List of U.S. states by incarceration and correctional supervision rate - Wikipedia

Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the US. So, your theory would suggest that Louisiana doesn't have much crime, or many murders.

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Wait, Louisiana has the HIGHEST murder rate at 10.3 per 100,000 which is much higher than second placed Mississippi.
Mississippi in second place for murder and third for locking people up.

Er... what? So it's not locking people up that's solving anything, is it? They're breeding criminals down there. Unless you stop people being criminals in the first place, you just spend loads of money on the justice system, rather than on making people's lives better.

The murder rate will never be zero
There will always be heat of the moment killings

But since something like 70% or more of all murders are committed by people with criminal histories it makes sense that keeping those criminals off the streets will reduce the murder rate

And tell me how will banning guns keep people from being criminals especially when you consider that the vast majority of gun owners will never commit a crime anyway?

Who's talking about the murder rate being zero? Are we getting on to "logic" where if it can't be zero then forget about it, it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 1 million?

Yes, in every country there are "heat of the moment killings" and the US just happens to have 4 times more of them than most first world countries.

Are you making up statistics now? I don't see a source for your claim that 70% of murders are committed by people with criminal histories.

The funny thing is that it doesn't really matter. You say "it makes sense", yeah, sure, lots of things make sense to some people, and yet don't make sense at all to people who actually think about these things.

I basically showed you that states like Louisiana and Mississippi put people away and it doesn't stop the murder rate being sky high, does it? So, there's a fallacy in your argument, and yet even after being shown this, you come back with the same argument again. Come on.

I didn't say banning guns would stop people from being criminals, did I? If you want to argue with someone who makes this argument, go ahead, but don't argue with me over something I didn't actually say, hummmkay?

all killings are not heat of the moment killings

Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record

The report concludes that “of the 2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest.”
Read more at Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record

and all you do is concentrate on the number of guns and the murder rate so don't tell me you don't think that removing guns from society will stop people from killing

Firstly, your article talks about being arrested, not being a criminal. So would you just lock up anyone who got arrested for anything simply because this group might make up the highest rate of murderers?

I haven't said anything about the number of guns, so why you think I'm just concentrating on this, I don't know.

I don't think "just removing guns from society" will stop people killing and I didn't say this. Fucking hell dude, who are you debating with? It doesn't appear to be me.

 

[yiostheoy]

3/4 of all murders are with gun in the US. The US murder rate is 4 times higher than the UK murder rate and the usual rate for most first world countries. So, the non-gun murder rate in the US is about normal for a murder rate in the first world, and then this is times by three because of guns in society.

Yes disease will kill people, but up to this moment we're struggling to prevent people dying from certain diseases like cancer. But that doesn't mean we should ignore other problems simply because another problem exists, does it?

"Oh, no, my refrigerator is broken"
"Ignore it, you're ugly, you don't need a refrigerator when you're ugly anyway"

So what ?!

If you take away guns then 3/4ths of all murders will be with knives like in the UK.

Remember Jack The Ripper ?! Their problem has been incessant ever since Queen Victoria.

 

[yiostheoy]

Our murder rate in 1950 was the same as it is today and it was about 4 times higher than the UK then too

You cannot ignore that the US is NOT the UK and that we have very different socioeconomic and cultural situations

Yeah, and the US had guns then too, and the UK didn't then too. So what do you think the chances are that guns are a significant problem in the US?

The problem is the US is not the UK, nor is it any of the other first world countries which ALL have a much lower murder rate than the US, mostly around the 1/4 mark. The "The US isn't the UK" doesn't work when you see that ALL FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES have a lower rate. The "It's the Americas" doesn't work either, seeing as Canada has a much lower rate too.

Really? There were no guns in the UK in the 50's?

Are you high?

The UK passed their very harsh gun laws in the late 60s and the murder rate climbed through the 90s only to fall back to the level it is today

Just like in the US

Americans are not British. We have very different personality traits and not too mention a very different society

Okay, the UK had guns back then, and it has guns now. The point being that they don't have many now and didn't have many then, certainly ordinary people did not go out and buy a gun either in the 1950s or today.

No, the UK is not the US. I've lived in both countries, and I've lived in Spain, Germany, Austria among others, and these countries are far more different to the UK than the US is. It does not in any way account for a murder rate that is 4 times higher. Canadians are far closer to the US than any other country in terms of personality, and yet... Canada has a murder rate of 1.4 compared to the US's rate of around 4 per 100,000 people. So.... so.... so what?

SO what? I really don't care that criminals kill each other to the extent they do here.

All I care about is that law abiding people have the right to defend themselves from the criminals that we don't lock up

But British people have the right to defend themselves too. Just not necessarily with a gun. But then hey, why do they need a gun? They're less likely to be killed anyway.

The problem is you've gone through all the arguments, been found wanting, then you come back with the simplistic "I want a gun", but you don't want to see the damage that guns have on your society, and that actually having a gun makes things WORSE than if you couldn't get a gun.

Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

 

[Claudette]

It is worth the price to the right that 11,700+ people are killed by guns yearly.

Is it not worth the price that people are free to practice their own religion for that 9+ people die a year?

I think everyone should be able to practice their religion without being messed with.

I'm pretty sure the dead in San Bernardino, Paris and Nice would disagree with your statement.

The religion of "peace" is far from peaceful and only a moron like you doesn't see it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, and the US had guns then too, and the UK didn't then too. So what do you think the chances are that guns are a significant problem in the US?

The problem is the US is not the UK, nor is it any of the other first world countries which ALL have a much lower murder rate than the US, mostly around the 1/4 mark. The "The US isn't the UK" doesn't work when you see that ALL FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES have a lower rate. The "It's the Americas" doesn't work either, seeing as Canada has a much lower rate too.

Really? There were no guns in the UK in the 50's?

Are you high?

The UK passed their very harsh gun laws in the late 60s and the murder rate climbed through the 90s only to fall back to the level it is today

Just like in the US

Americans are not British. We have very different personality traits and not too mention a very different society

Okay, the UK had guns back then, and it has guns now. The point being that they don't have many now and didn't have many then, certainly ordinary people did not go out and buy a gun either in the 1950s or today.

No, the UK is not the US. I've lived in both countries, and I've lived in Spain, Germany, Austria among others, and these countries are far more different to the UK than the US is. It does not in any way account for a murder rate that is 4 times higher. Canadians are far closer to the US than any other country in terms of personality, and yet... Canada has a murder rate of 1.4 compared to the US's rate of around 4 per 100,000 people. So.... so.... so what?

SO what? I really don't care that criminals kill each other to the extent they do here.

All I care about is that law abiding people have the right to defend themselves from the criminals that we don't lock up

But British people have the right to defend themselves too. Just not necessarily with a gun. But then hey, why do they need a gun? They're less likely to be killed anyway.

The problem is you've gone through all the arguments, been found wanting, then you come back with the simplistic "I want a gun", but you don't want to see the damage that guns have on your society, and that actually having a gun makes things WORSE than if you couldn't get a gun.

It's not guns that damage society it's criminals who use guns in the commission of crimes.

you want to ignore the fact that 3/4 or gun shot victims and 3/4 of all shooters have prior criminal histories, or that taking gang murders out of the equation lowers our murder rate to about 3000 per year

It's just not true that most murders are committed by previously law abiding people who happen to own guns who went berserk one day

we don't have a gun problem. We have other problems that contribute to our high crime rate

Sure, it's criminals. Now here's the problem, a criminal with a gun is far more a threat than a criminal without one. Also, a society that basically breeds criminals isn't a good society and has lots of criminals.

I'm not ignoring that many of the murderers had previous ARRESTS (criminal histories, as you put it), but then you want to take gangs out of the picture? Why is that? Gangs are still a part of society, and cause massive problems because the US breeds people into gangs.

I have spoken about this before and the biggest problem is often that the politicians won't do anything about sorting out the problems that exist within society, which causes more crime and criminals. It's an attitude which I hit every time I debate this. The whole "we're individuals, we should do anything", it's a circular argument which never gets anything solved.

We need guns because society is danger - society is dangerous because we refuse to do anything to solve it - because we don't solve it we need guns.

 

[yiostheoy]

frigidweirdo but for the USA you and your compatriots would be speaking German right now, not English.

We have had gun rights since the Mayflower here in America.

There has always been someone in American who wants to kill you.

Originally it was the French and Indians.

Then the Mexicans.

Then the freed Negro slaves.

Then Italian bootleggers peddling homebrewed booze.

Recently wacko white mo-fo's and Islamic terrorists have added themselves to the list as well.

And also dope dealers today as well.

If you outlaw guns then (1) only outlaws will have guns or (2) outlaws will use knives.

Q.E.D.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, and the US had guns then too, and the UK didn't then too. So what do you think the chances are that guns are a significant problem in the US?

The problem is the US is not the UK, nor is it any of the other first world countries which ALL have a much lower murder rate than the US, mostly around the 1/4 mark. The "The US isn't the UK" doesn't work when you see that ALL FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES have a lower rate. The "It's the Americas" doesn't work either, seeing as Canada has a much lower rate too.

Really? There were no guns in the UK in the 50's?

Are you high?

The UK passed their very harsh gun laws in the late 60s and the murder rate climbed through the 90s only to fall back to the level it is today

Just like in the US

Americans are not British. We have very different personality traits and not too mention a very different society

Okay, the UK had guns back then, and it has guns now. The point being that they don't have many now and didn't have many then, certainly ordinary people did not go out and buy a gun either in the 1950s or today.

No, the UK is not the US. I've lived in both countries, and I've lived in Spain, Germany, Austria among others, and these countries are far more different to the UK than the US is. It does not in any way account for a murder rate that is 4 times higher. Canadians are far closer to the US than any other country in terms of personality, and yet... Canada has a murder rate of 1.4 compared to the US's rate of around 4 per 100,000 people. So.... so.... so what?

SO what? I really don't care that criminals kill each other to the extent they do here.

All I care about is that law abiding people have the right to defend themselves from the criminals that we don't lock up

But British people have the right to defend themselves too. Just not necessarily with a gun. But then hey, why do they need a gun? They're less likely to be killed anyway.

The problem is you've gone through all the arguments, been found wanting, then you come back with the simplistic "I want a gun", but you don't want to see the damage that guns have on your society, and that actually having a gun makes things WORSE than if you couldn't get a gun.

Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Why not? Bayonets have been the mainstay of armies for a long time.

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo but for the USA you and your compatriots would be speaking German right now, not English.

We have had gun rights since the Mayflower.

There has always been someone in American who wants to kill you.

Originally it was the French and Indians.

Then the Mexicans.

Then the freed Negro slaves.

Recently wacko white mo-fo's and Islamic terrorists have added themselves to the list as well.

If you outlaw guns then (1) only outlaws will have guns or (2) outlaws will use knives.

Q.E.D.

Me and my companions? Who would that be then? What country do you assume I'm from, exactly?

As for your argument, sorry, what? I don't get it, in fact I'm not sure there is one.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Canadians are far closer to the US than any other country in terms of personality, and yet... Canada has a murder rate of 1.4 compared to the US's rate of around 4 per 100,000 people. So.... so.... so what?

How does that equate to guns though? do you believe Canadians would start killing each other for no other reason than being allowed to own guns? would any of the countries you cited start killing each other simply because they had the right to own guns?...if so then they are the ones that have a real problem, I would suggest to you that you take an honest look at what else there is less of in those countries than the U.S. and see if your line of reasoning still adds up to the same thing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

3/4 of all murders are with gun in the US. The US murder rate is 4 times higher than the UK murder rate and the usual rate for most first world countries. So, the non-gun murder rate in the US is about normal for a murder rate in the first world, and then this is times by three because of guns in society.

Yes disease will kill people, but up to this moment we're struggling to prevent people dying from certain diseases like cancer. But that doesn't mean we should ignore other problems simply because another problem exists, does it?

"Oh, no, my refrigerator is broken"
"Ignore it, you're ugly, you don't need a refrigerator when you're ugly anyway"

So what ?!

If you take away guns then 3/4ths of all murders will be with knives like in the UK.

Remember Jack The Ripper ?! Their problem has been incessant ever since Queen Victoria.

That's such bad logic and it's wrong.

Yes, I didn't say murders didn't happen in the UK. Seems like everyone is arguing with my ghost or something, not with what I actually said.

 

[owebo]

frigidweirdo but for the USA you and your compatriots would be speaking German right now, not English.

We have had gun rights since the Mayflower.

There has always been someone in American who wants to kill you.

Originally it was the French and Indians.

Then the Mexicans.

Then the freed Negro slaves.

Recently wacko white mo-fo's and Islamic terrorists have added themselves to the list as well.

If you outlaw guns then (1) only outlaws will have guns or (2) outlaws will use knives.

Q.E.D.

Me and my companions? Who would that be then? What country do you assume I'm from, exactly?

As for your argument, sorry, what? I don't get it, in fact I'm not sure there is one.

You're from the plantation....that's blatantly obvious to all except you evidently...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Canadians are far closer to the US than any other country in terms of personality, and yet... Canada has a murder rate of 1.4 compared to the US's rate of around 4 per 100,000 people. So.... so.... so what?

How does that equate to guns though? do you believe Canadians would start killing each other for no other reason than being allowed to own guns? would any of the countries you cited start killing each other simply because they had the right to own guns?...if so then they are the ones that have a real problem, I would suggest to you that you take an honest look at what else there is less of in those countries than the U.S. and see if your line of reasoning still adds up to the same thing.

It doesn't necessarily equate to guns. This is about society.

 

[Rustic]

...of dying in the US

Clearly there's an issue here, and it's not Islamic terrorism.

The right say we can't take guns away from people, but they do want to prevent Muslims getting into the US. Why? Er... because one isn't them and the other is, probably.

2017 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[Rustic]

It is worth the price to the right that 11,700+ people are killed by guns yearly.

You obviously have your fucking head up your fucking ass, more firearms equal less violent crime… Fact
2017 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol. Sob sob.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's a fact that most people involved in shootings have long criminal histories
If we kept them off the streets rather than letting them out the murder rate would plummet but you don't want to keep people who commit crimes with guns in jail do you?

Yes, maybe it is. That doesn't mean it's the person who are getting killed are always "not so innocent". How many people who aren't involved in crime get caught up in this shit? Oh, we don't know, they don't do stats for that, but I'm betting it's higher than the UK murder rate for those innocents killed, possibly 4 times higher again.

You say "if we kept them off the streets", er... I can quash that argument easily.

List of U.S. states by incarceration and correctional supervision rate - Wikipedia

Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the US. So, your theory would suggest that Louisiana doesn't have much crime, or many murders.

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Wait, Louisiana has the HIGHEST murder rate at 10.3 per 100,000 which is much higher than second placed Mississippi.
Mississippi in second place for murder and third for locking people up.

Er... what? So it's not locking people up that's solving anything, is it? They're breeding criminals down there. Unless you stop people being criminals in the first place, you just spend loads of money on the justice system, rather than on making people's lives better.

The murder rate will never be zero
There will always be heat of the moment killings

But since something like 70% or more of all murders are committed by people with criminal histories it makes sense that keeping those criminals off the streets will reduce the murder rate

And tell me how will banning guns keep people from being criminals especially when you consider that the vast majority of gun owners will never commit a crime anyway?

Who's talking about the murder rate being zero? Are we getting on to "logic" where if it can't be zero then forget about it, it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 1 million?

Yes, in every country there are "heat of the moment killings" and the US just happens to have 4 times more of them than most first world countries.

Are you making up statistics now? I don't see a source for your claim that 70% of murders are committed by people with criminal histories.

The funny thing is that it doesn't really matter. You say "it makes sense", yeah, sure, lots of things make sense to some people, and yet don't make sense at all to people who actually think about these things.

I basically showed you that states like Louisiana and Mississippi put people away and it doesn't stop the murder rate being sky high, does it? So, there's a fallacy in your argument, and yet even after being shown this, you come back with the same argument again. Come on.

I didn't say banning guns would stop people from being criminals, did I? If you want to argue with someone who makes this argument, go ahead, but don't argue with me over something I didn't actually say, hummmkay?

all killings are not heat of the moment killings

Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record

The report concludes that “of the 2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest.”
Read more at Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record

and all you do is concentrate on the number of guns and the murder rate so don't tell me you don't think that removing guns from society will stop people from killing

Firstly, your article talks about being arrested, not being a criminal. So would you just lock up anyone who got arrested for anything simply because this group might make up the highest rate of murderers?

I haven't said anything about the number of guns, so why you think I'm just concentrating on this, I don't know.

I don't think "just removing guns from society" will stop people killing and I didn't say this. Fucking hell dude, who are you debating with? It doesn't appear to be me.

Yeah because soooo many innocent people get arrested every day

Why do you concentrate solely on guns when you speak of murder then?

You obviously think guns cause murders

But you're wrong of course

 

[Skull Pilot]

Really? There were no guns in the UK in the 50's?

Are you high?

The UK passed their very harsh gun laws in the late 60s and the murder rate climbed through the 90s only to fall back to the level it is today

Just like in the US

Americans are not British. We have very different personality traits and not too mention a very different society

Okay, the UK had guns back then, and it has guns now. The point being that they don't have many now and didn't have many then, certainly ordinary people did not go out and buy a gun either in the 1950s or today.

No, the UK is not the US. I've lived in both countries, and I've lived in Spain, Germany, Austria among others, and these countries are far more different to the UK than the US is. It does not in any way account for a murder rate that is 4 times higher. Canadians are far closer to the US than any other country in terms of personality, and yet... Canada has a murder rate of 1.4 compared to the US's rate of around 4 per 100,000 people. So.... so.... so what?

SO what? I really don't care that criminals kill each other to the extent they do here.

All I care about is that law abiding people have the right to defend themselves from the criminals that we don't lock up

But British people have the right to defend themselves too. Just not necessarily with a gun. But then hey, why do they need a gun? They're less likely to be killed anyway.

The problem is you've gone through all the arguments, been found wanting, then you come back with the simplistic "I want a gun", but you don't want to see the damage that guns have on your society, and that actually having a gun makes things WORSE than if you couldn't get a gun.

It's not guns that damage society it's criminals who use guns in the commission of crimes.

you want to ignore the fact that 3/4 or gun shot victims and 3/4 of all shooters have prior criminal histories, or that taking gang murders out of the equation lowers our murder rate to about 3000 per year

It's just not true that most murders are committed by previously law abiding people who happen to own guns who went berserk one day

we don't have a gun problem. We have other problems that contribute to our high crime rate

Sure, it's criminals. Now here's the problem, a criminal with a gun is far more a threat than a criminal without one. Also, a society that basically breeds criminals isn't a good society and has lots of criminals.

I'm not ignoring that many of the murderers had previous ARRESTS (criminal histories, as you put it), but then you want to take gangs out of the picture? Why is that? Gangs are still a part of society, and cause massive problems because the US breeds people into gangs.

I have spoken about this before and the biggest problem is often that the politicians won't do anything about sorting out the problems that exist within society, which causes more crime and criminals. It's an attitude which I hit every time I debate this. The whole "we're individuals, we should do anything", it's a circular argument which never gets anything solved.

We need guns because society is danger - society is dangerous because we refuse to do anything to solve it - because we don't solve it we need guns.

People who commit crimes with guns are an extreme minority of the population. I hardly call that "breeding criminals"

The fact is society as a whole is not in danger. There are isolated pockets of extremely high crime and murder in this country in mostly urban areas.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, maybe it is. That doesn't mean it's the person who are getting killed are always "not so innocent". How many people who aren't involved in crime get caught up in this shit? Oh, we don't know, they don't do stats for that, but I'm betting it's higher than the UK murder rate for those innocents killed, possibly 4 times higher again.

You say "if we kept them off the streets", er... I can quash that argument easily.

List of U.S. states by incarceration and correctional supervision rate - Wikipedia

Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the US. So, your theory would suggest that Louisiana doesn't have much crime, or many murders.

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Wait, Louisiana has the HIGHEST murder rate at 10.3 per 100,000 which is much higher than second placed Mississippi.
Mississippi in second place for murder and third for locking people up.

Er... what? So it's not locking people up that's solving anything, is it? They're breeding criminals down there. Unless you stop people being criminals in the first place, you just spend loads of money on the justice system, rather than on making people's lives better.

The murder rate will never be zero
There will always be heat of the moment killings

But since something like 70% or more of all murders are committed by people with criminal histories it makes sense that keeping those criminals off the streets will reduce the murder rate

And tell me how will banning guns keep people from being criminals especially when you consider that the vast majority of gun owners will never commit a crime anyway?

Who's talking about the murder rate being zero? Are we getting on to "logic" where if it can't be zero then forget about it, it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 1 million?

Yes, in every country there are "heat of the moment killings" and the US just happens to have 4 times more of them than most first world countries.

Are you making up statistics now? I don't see a source for your claim that 70% of murders are committed by people with criminal histories.

The funny thing is that it doesn't really matter. You say "it makes sense", yeah, sure, lots of things make sense to some people, and yet don't make sense at all to people who actually think about these things.

I basically showed you that states like Louisiana and Mississippi put people away and it doesn't stop the murder rate being sky high, does it? So, there's a fallacy in your argument, and yet even after being shown this, you come back with the same argument again. Come on.

I didn't say banning guns would stop people from being criminals, did I? If you want to argue with someone who makes this argument, go ahead, but don't argue with me over something I didn't actually say, hummmkay?

all killings are not heat of the moment killings

Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record

The report concludes that “of the 2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest.”
Read more at Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record

and all you do is concentrate on the number of guns and the murder rate so don't tell me you don't think that removing guns from society will stop people from killing

Firstly, your article talks about being arrested, not being a criminal. So would you just lock up anyone who got arrested for anything simply because this group might make up the highest rate of murderers?

I haven't said anything about the number of guns, so why you think I'm just concentrating on this, I don't know.

I don't think "just removing guns from society" will stop people killing and I didn't say this. Fucking hell dude, who are you debating with? It doesn't appear to be me.

Yeah because soooo many innocent people get arrested every day

Why do you concentrate solely on guns when you speak of murder then?

You obviously think guns cause murders

But you're wrong of course

The point being that being arrested isn't the same as being convicted.

I don't concentrate solely on guns. However I do acknowledge the part that guns do play in this whole thing.

No, I don't obviously think guns cause murder. This isn't some fucking simpleton debate, or is it?

I'm wrong? Come off it, you've been throwing things at me all freaking day and you've been proven wrong every time and you haven't used much in the way of evidence to back anything you've said it. Just putting things out there and hoping they stick is hardly debate, is it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, the UK had guns back then, and it has guns now. The point being that they don't have many now and didn't have many then, certainly ordinary people did not go out and buy a gun either in the 1950s or today.

No, the UK is not the US. I've lived in both countries, and I've lived in Spain, Germany, Austria among others, and these countries are far more different to the UK than the US is. It does not in any way account for a murder rate that is 4 times higher. Canadians are far closer to the US than any other country in terms of personality, and yet... Canada has a murder rate of 1.4 compared to the US's rate of around 4 per 100,000 people. So.... so.... so what?

SO what? I really don't care that criminals kill each other to the extent they do here.

All I care about is that law abiding people have the right to defend themselves from the criminals that we don't lock up

But British people have the right to defend themselves too. Just not necessarily with a gun. But then hey, why do they need a gun? They're less likely to be killed anyway.

The problem is you've gone through all the arguments, been found wanting, then you come back with the simplistic "I want a gun", but you don't want to see the damage that guns have on your society, and that actually having a gun makes things WORSE than if you couldn't get a gun.

It's not guns that damage society it's criminals who use guns in the commission of crimes.

you want to ignore the fact that 3/4 or gun shot victims and 3/4 of all shooters have prior criminal histories, or that taking gang murders out of the equation lowers our murder rate to about 3000 per year

It's just not true that most murders are committed by previously law abiding people who happen to own guns who went berserk one day

we don't have a gun problem. We have other problems that contribute to our high crime rate

Sure, it's criminals. Now here's the problem, a criminal with a gun is far more a threat than a criminal without one. Also, a society that basically breeds criminals isn't a good society and has lots of criminals.

I'm not ignoring that many of the murderers had previous ARRESTS (criminal histories, as you put it), but then you want to take gangs out of the picture? Why is that? Gangs are still a part of society, and cause massive problems because the US breeds people into gangs.

I have spoken about this before and the biggest problem is often that the politicians won't do anything about sorting out the problems that exist within society, which causes more crime and criminals. It's an attitude which I hit every time I debate this. The whole "we're individuals, we should do anything", it's a circular argument which never gets anything solved.

We need guns because society is danger - society is dangerous because we refuse to do anything to solve it - because we don't solve it we need guns.

People who commit crimes with guns are an extreme minority of the population. I hardly call that "breeding criminals"

The fact is society as a whole is not in danger. There are isolated pockets of extremely high crime and murder in this country in mostly urban areas.

Yes, people who commit crimes with guns are a minority of the population. People who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam are an even smaller portion of the Muslim world. And yet the right feels the need to put all Muslims in the same basket and declare them all dangerous.

Yes, there are areas of high crime and society doesn't seem to have the desire to solve any of these problems, just shove them under the carpet, right? You see a problem, er... well... um... nah, can't be bothered to solve that problem, nor that one. But hey, oh, there's a problem that we just made for ourselves by invading Iraq, er... yeah, we need to solve that one because 9 people died, but the problem where 10,000 people die, nah, that's not a problem. 9 people is people, 10,000 people is just a statistic, right?