(February 12, 2016 at 1:39 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 10, 2016 at 11:48 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I reject the notion that gun control worked well in Britiain. The murder rate didn't go down after the various gun control measures there. So by what standard did it work well? Britain has a lower murder rate then the US, but then it has a similarly lower murder rate before it had gun control as well. Britain has always had a lower murder rate then the US, regardless of it's gun control laws. I haven't seen any evidence that Britain's gun laws lowered the murder rate there. If it isn't causing less murders, what's the point?

Well that would be because you do not know about the history of gun crime gun crime in the UK. We have had no mass shootings since semi automatic rifles were banned after the Hungerford massacre. The ban has worked extremely well In my view and has prevented mass murders. Do you think the people who beheaded Lee Rigby would have killed just the one person if they had had access to the array of weaponry that any idiot can purchase in America, no they would have tried to carry out paris style attacks.

Yeah, but mass shooting and 'gun deaths' aren't the issue that I'm addressing. Which is the claim that banning guns is going to reduce the homicide rate. Which it didn't in the UK.

(February 11, 2016 at 7:57 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: As I've said, homicide rate is the least important statistic when discussing gun controls. Far from being a 'propaganda' stat, gun-related deaths are the only truly representative measure of the effectiveness of controls.

Gun related deaths is the only stat that matters?? That's totally insane. By that standard murders and suicides could go up but if gun deaths went down it would be a success. That just doesn't make good sense. Deaths are what matters, not gun deaths, deaths.

It's also interesting to see people admitting that guns aren't related to the murder rate. I guess that's something.

(February 12, 2016 at 2:06 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 12, 2016 at 1:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Firstly, the idea that any idiot can get his hands on overwhelming firepower is a gross bit of misinformation.  Secondly, in the US...mass shooters use handguns, not semi-auto rifles.  Completely nuts motherfuckers are a small subset of mass shooters which is, itself, a negligible fraction of -our- gun problem.   Banning guns to prevent one or two crimes...while creating an entirely new problem even more serious...as we ignore the initial -endemic- problem....is unlikely to go well - to achieve the results we hope for.  It will cost us, though, tremendously.

A pistol IS overwhelming fire power. We have to register for airsoft guns here. The amount of gun crimes that haven't happened because there are no guns available is a hard one to gage but the simple fact is that if guns were available people would die by guns more often. In the US there is a massive problem with guns, banning outright may not be the answer but something should be done.

Please remember that, and mind it - the good which your onerous gun regs actually do for your safety is indeed hard to gage. Knowing that, maybe you shouldn't be telling other countries what they should do. If Americans do that too much, that habit was learned from the British.

"Deaths are what matters,not gun deaths,deaths."
LOL
Americans have had so many mass shootings and gun related deaths they think it's the norm.

"hey you heard jerold's boy got shot? O.o"

"k"

Quote:If Americans do that too much,that habit was learned from the British.

"But mommy!! He started it!!!!"

(February 12, 2016 at 9:54 pm)pool the great Wrote:

Quote:If Americans do that too much,that habit was learned from the British.

"But mommy!! He started it!!!!"

"Occifer, Pool shot first!"

(February 12, 2016 at 3:14 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: It's a bit like God really.

If you really want to believe in him, you'll find a reason that isn't "I'm afraid of dying - this looks like a good way to bury my head in the sand".

If you really want a gun, you'll find a reason for that too. One that isn't "guns make me feel big and powerful."

An uncharitable assumption, that. There are good reasons to own a gun, no matter your protestations. I live out in the country -- if I have an issue, with a predator or with an asshole, the police are thirty minutes away.

I don't own a gun right now, and am not sure when I'll get one. But it's good to have the option if a rabid coyote shows up on my doorstep.

Your preconceived notions notwithstanding, it's not about me feeling big and bad, it's about being able to handle business.

I'm not afraid to die -- I know that that train will pull into the station, one day or another -- but I'd just as soon forestall it with the means at my disposal. if you don't want to carry a gun, great. If you don't want one in your house, great. Others don't have your circumstances, and therefore don't share your views ... especially your views on the motivations of gun-owners.

But don't let me stop you patting yourself on the back. You keep on feeling good about your stance, brotha.

(February 12, 2016 at 9:50 pm)pool the great Wrote: "Deaths are what matters,not gun deaths,deaths."
LOL
Americans have had so many mass shootings and gun related deaths they think it's the norm.

"hey you heard jerold's boy got shot? O.o"

"k"

How many Americans do you know? Give everyone here a baseline metric so that we can adjudge your opinion with the correct weight.


So far as I can tell, you're talking out of your ass. I doubt you know one single American personally, I doubt you've ever been to America, and I know for a fact that your mouth is in gear while your brain is in neutral.

Show us why your opinion should carry weight.

Oh i'm sorry, i didn't realize you had "the great" after Thumpalumpacus.


Oh wait.....you don't.
Pool -1
Thump -0

(February 13, 2016 at 1:04 am)pool the great Wrote: Oh i'm sorry, i didn't realize you had "the great" after Thumpalumpacus.


Oh wait.....you don't.
Pool -1
Thump -0

Pool, how old are you?