SpudFiles

Well Hotwired I think its time to let these fellas hash it out.I think are debate is done.See ya around

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:

Hotwired wrote:For example, Heres a nice fact: more americans die to guns than to vehicles every year. Is that coincidence or are there too many guns in america and too little respect for them?

What am I not saying? Or am I right?

That can't be right. Have a look at some impartial statistics

Would that number drop if all guns were made illegal? Absolutely.

That doesn't really stand up when looking at UK statistics:

That was a rigged question using US data not UK data that included suicides using guns which from my source exceeds that of deaths by vehicles. Thats why the number of deaths by guns would drop if they were made illegal.

Thats an example of presenting and misrepresenting facts to suit the case in the same way as I was saying the table shown above was making false claims.

Hotwired's point is more than correct about gun suicide. No guns, no gun suicides.
Blaming the holocaust on gun control is just wrong - and I really hope that you can see that.

Again, to mention the UK's laws on gun control, there was (I believe) no huge outcry about a massive rise in deaths because of the inability of people to defend themselves. (Forgive errors here - I was obviously much younger at the time.)

Beyond that, you only have to glance at the Darwin awards to see how poorly some people handle guns:
- Russian roulette with a semi-automatic.
- Thinking that a semi-auto was safe when the magazine was removed.
- All kinds of richochets.
- Shooting unexploded munitions.
- Accidental suicide through various methods.

How thick can you get?
Guns need to be controlled, at least so that complete dipshits don't get their hands on them.

Well then, make it so you have to pass a course to get guns. If a person wants to commit suicide, they can use a lot of things other than guns. If a person cant get a gun, and wants to kill somebody, they can use a knife. If they cant get that they can use a pointy stick! You get what I am saying? If you outlaw guns, honest people give them up, but criminals keep them. Honest person is stuck with a little knife or baseball bat for defense....Honest person gets shot.

joannaardway wrote:Hotwired's point is more than correct about gun suicide. No guns, no gun suicides.

True, but come on. If people want to die, they'll find a way.

How thick can you get?
Guns need to be controlled, at least so that complete dipshits don't get their hands on them.

Over 1,500 people died in the US in 2003 falling down stairs, would you like to ban stairs as well?

Protect fools from their folly, and you'll populate the earth with fools - this is what the Darwin awards are all about, natural selection. The UK is enough of a nanny-state as it is, why should people have to be guarded against their own stupidity?

LOL jacks I like your thinking!!!

Beebs,

The "Biased" chart along with the battle of athens ga was done by the group , Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership.

they and another group, G.O.A. http://www.gunowners.org/ (gun owners of America) both take a view more rigid than the N.R.A. (no compromise) on all classes of firearms.

a scoped bolt action rifle is too accurate = sniper rifle
.
small hand gun =concealable

the big s&w 500 mag handgun=too powerful

n.r.a.
working with anti gun forces is seen by some as a erosion of our rights
http://www.jpfo.org/commentary.htm

and a bunch more on their links page.

http://www.jpfo.org/links.htm


Hotwire ,
"" So to restate my point, nothing in the last 200 years since the civil war has happened where an armed civilian militia has been required. ""

I wrote heres a couple and wrote or linked you to 2.

I forgot about the minutemen project that is actively guarding our border with Mexico.


the outdated genocide chart wasn't meant as accusation that gun laws in them selfs kill innocent people but that they are used by the killers of innocent people
Aside from banning jews from possessing guns knives ,and clubs Hitler inherited Germany's restrictive gun laws.


hotwire I'd like to see your sources.

I cant find any that are even close in comparing vehicle and firearm deaths suicides or not ,, or any numbers on gun banning reducing crime.

or places that have banned them having less crime, and being safer.
everything I read points the other way.most seem to have England ahead of the U.S. in violent crime.


Another "biased and skewed chart"


Trends in recorded violent crime in England and Wales, the United States, Canada, and Australia, rate per 100,000 persons, 1962-2004

Note: Violent crime comprises homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery. Time periods charted reflect the availability of consistent, nationwide data for each country.
Sources

* US Bureau of Justice Statistics 2003. Source book of criminal justice statistics; FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Program; Statistics Canada. Uniform crime reporting survey; ABS. Recorded crime, Australia; UK Home Office. Crime statistics for England and Wales.

Yes, people will find a way to commit suicide. But death via extreme stupidity with guns would be cut by a gun ban.

Ok, the Darwin awards are about people killing themselves, and thus "improving" the human race. But I was using them as an example of how stupid gun users can be.

There are a huge number of cases where similarly stupid dipshits have killed others with their stupidity with guns. I just didn't have any recorded cases available to list for that.

Falling down stairs doesn't take stupidity, it takes bad luck.

Someone like Stuart Pide of however low IQ could climb and descend stairs for their whole life and come out fine. However, Dr Ian Michael Andrew Gene Iuss could get unlucky one day, and trip.

Killing someone by mistake with a gun takes stupidity. Death via stairs is a coincidence.

I disagree. If you're careful using the stairs, you need not have any accidents - the same laws of probability apply to guns too.

hey guys, i figured i let you battle it out without me, because my fingers are tired from typing the same thing over and over again i stand by my previous point. no questions asked, also, your gun, if tested would be able to exceed 12 ft/lbs, when the cops tested it, you would not be there to say, oh by the way, only charge it to 200 psi, no more. all of the charts and graphs that i have seen on this thread support my side, so im not sure what there is to argue about, except screaming THESE GRAPHS ARE BIASED, MANIPULATED, AND WAAAAAHHHHHHH. just becasue a graph dosent lean the way you want doesn't make it misleading. sometimes you are wrong, you just have to live with it.

You're wrong on the test: I'm talking about charged to 240psi or even 300psi.

I've given an example of how data can be misrepresented and if you believe the holocaust and every other genocide listed there was caused by gun control then perhaps you should take your own advice. One view of gun control does not have a right to overrule others.

I'm going to post my source I mentioned above when I get a chance to access the computer I saved the link on.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:I disagree. If you're careful using the stairs, you need not have any accidents - the same laws of probability apply to guns too.

Not really. Some people don't seem to realise what is careful use when using guns.

An accident on the stairs is a matter of chance.
Any "accident" with a gun (save a very few), must have had some conscious action in order for the gun to have been in a condition where that could have happened.

You choose to pull a trigger, or load the gun. You don't choose to fall down stairs.

Ok, you choose to climb the stairs, but you don't climb the stairs with intent to fall down them.
You load or fire a gun with intent to damage, injure or kill.
Guns are designed to kill. Stairs aren't.

When you can show me that per use of a set of stairs, they are even vaguely comparable in danger to a gun (per use), then you can present stairs as a "sensible" argument. (let's say a minimum of the 1/100th of the risk)

With regards to the "I need to fight the government" argument - name me one time in the last 50 years when US civilians fighting the US government was necessary.

In fact, make that any government or army. When did were the humble civilians last needed to help fight off an invasion?
Not in a very long time...

You load or fire a gun with intent to damage, injure or kill.

If there is intent, then the incidents you mention simply aren't accidents.

Road accidents kill more people than firearms in the US - ban cars?

Ah, you might say, but cars have a "peaceful" purpose, unlike guns. Well, if we had to go around banning everything that was unessential, life would be very empty indeed. Indeed, the cornerstone of this forum, Spudguns are completely useless devices, made only for our amusement - what if the government came and took them away from you, because not everyone could be trusted to handle them properly, or as a knee-jerk reaction because some idiot fired a frog into his face?

This wishy-washy politically correct ideal of coating everything in bubble wrap on the off chance that god forbid, someone, somewhere might sprain a finger will be the downfall of western society. Life is hard, deal with it.

Teach me to put an unnecessary comparison in

I rechecked and found I'd managed to add the total number of gun deaths up twice which took it from 3/4 car deaths to 1.5x car deaths... I was surprised at it the first time but I was in a rush to get an important writeup done and didn't recheck...

*gets self a muppet award*

Nevertheless the cars had nothing to actually do with the point which was the ability to misrepresent data as you want - as I was saying Cdhellers graph did.

You can see from here: http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm that gun deaths in the US in 2004 were 29,569. What I don't need to say is that 56% were suicides and therefore not malicious use of a gun against others which is the primary concern.

I can however very easily say that gun deaths would drop without such an efficient method of dispatch to hand.

I've already explained my criticism on the graph previously.


I've not actually said my own view on gun control.

Now might be a good time to do so:

I have no issues with the use of guns for recreational and practical use - hunting, target shooting, clay pigeon blasting, plinking, spudgunning and the like.

I do not agree with civilians being armed with firearms -or any other lethal weapon that requires minimal effort to cause death- as a means of self defence.

I regard self defence as being what is necessary to remove yourself from harm.

Being equipped with a highly penetrative device and general usage advice to aim for the central body mass of other people is what I call lethal force and therefore excessive to self defence.

I regard the civilian militia excuse as ancient and outdated for 21st century america, the country with the largest by far, military budget in the world.

Hotwired wrote:I can however very easily say that gun deaths would drop without such an efficient method of dispatch to hand.

That goes without saying, taking guns out of civillian hands will cut down on gun suicides and crimes of passion involving guns - I don't think anyone doubts this - but the guns here are just the tools, it's the human spirit that's the problem really. For example, it's my understanding that in the UK, a disgruntled indiviual would find it easier to make a large bomb than obtain an illegal handgun, and if mass killing is the objective then this would certainly be a more efficient means of dispatch. It's the same with suicide, if people want to die, they will find a way - indeed looking through the suicide guide I linked to earlier, it's amazing how creative man has been with bringing about his early demise.

What I'm trying to say is you can't legislate against craziness. If someone can't spell, taking away his pencil won't solve the problem. You can take away his pen, his crayon, his chalk, you can even give him a "spellcheck" feature on his spudgun forum and he will STILL persist in typographical errors.