(November 30, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Kayenneh Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 12:29 pm)BreadGod Wrote: It appears you still haven't realized this, so let me spell it out as simply as I can: criminal don't obey gun laws. If you ban guns, the only people you'll be disarming are innocent people. Krav Maga (or any other martial arts for that matter) will be completely useless against someone with a gun.

Actually, it's you who fail to see the point, and the big picture. I didn't mention criminals obtaining guns illegally, because it's so obvious. What I'm trying to get across here is not those who are criminals, but the trigger happy nutters with guns. Easy gun access leads to higher probabilities to get shot, regardless if the person shooting you is a previous criminal or not. Tell me, just how many times have you had someone point a gun at you with malicious intent? If you feel like you need to protect yourself against people with guns, it defeats the purpose if everyone are allowed to carry one, since without guns, no threat. And, there's a much deeper problem if civilians can't depend on law enforcement to do their jobs, without being corrupt or biased etc. That however does not get corrected by letting everyone carry guns and "defend themselves", but by addressing the problem of corruption. And if you like FFF keep your guns locked up, well, good luck if you aren't home and someone puts a gun to your temple. You're screwed anyways, gun owner or not. If the perpetrator is close enough, I can guarantee you that martial arts come in handy. As for banning guns I have never suggested that and I am not of the opinion that it's a good idea.

Holy shit, you're so naive. First of all, where's your evidence which shows that easier access to guns leads to more people getting shot? Do you really think real life is like those Hollywood movies where people shoot guns everywhere without a care in the world? Also, in response to your laughable claim that if there are no guns there's no threat, I want you to take a look at this graph:



The violent crime rate in America is at an all-time low while gun ownership is at an all-time high. That is not a coincidence. More guns in the hands of more people leads to less violent crime. Criminals aren't stupid. They don't wanna get shot. They don't want to rob a house if they know that the residents are armed. On the other hand, gun-free zones like Chicago are absolutely infested with crime. England took the guns away twenty years ago which has led to a tripling of their overall crime rate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l...urope.html

In response to your point about police, let me tell you this. If an intruder breaks into your house, you have two options: you can either get your gun or call the police. If you call the police, then they will get to your house, and when they do, they'll take a picture of your corpse. The police will never get there in time to save you. As the old saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

(November 30, 2013 at 8:06 pm)BreadGod Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: Actually, it's you who fail to see the point, and the big picture. I didn't mention criminals obtaining guns illegally, because it's so obvious. What I'm trying to get across here is not those who are criminals, but the trigger happy nutters with guns. Easy gun access leads to higher probabilities to get shot, regardless if the person shooting you is a previous criminal or not. Tell me, just how many times have you had someone point a gun at you with malicious intent? If you feel like you need to protect yourself against people with guns, it defeats the purpose if everyone are allowed to carry one, since without guns, no threat. And, there's a much deeper problem if civilians can't depend on law enforcement to do their jobs, without being corrupt or biased etc. That however does not get corrected by letting everyone carry guns and "defend themselves", but by addressing the problem of corruption. And if you like FFF keep your guns locked up, well, good luck if you aren't home and someone puts a gun to your temple. You're screwed anyways, gun owner or not. If the perpetrator is close enough, I can guarantee you that martial arts come in handy. As for banning guns I have never suggested that and I am not of the opinion that it's a good idea.

Holy shit, you're so naive. First of all, where's your evidence which shows that easier access to guns leads to more people getting shot? Do you really think real life is like those Hollywood movies where people shoot guns everywhere without a care in the world? Also, in response to your laughable claim that if there are no guns there's no threat, I want you to take a look at this graph:



The violent crime rate in America is at an all-time low while gun ownership is at an all-time high. That is not a coincidence. More guns in the hands of more people leads to less violent crime. Criminals aren't stupid. They don't wanna get shot. They don't want to rob a house if they know that the residents are armed. On the other hand, gun-free zones like Chicago are absolutely infested with crime. England took the guns away twenty years ago which has led to a tripling of their overall crime rate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l...urope.html

In response to your point about police, let me tell you this. If an intruder breaks into your house, you have two options: you can either get your gun or call the police. If you call the police, then they will get to your house, and when they do, they'll take a picture of your corpse. The police will never get there in time to save you. As the old saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Violent crime rate has been dropping globally, including places where gun ownership is historically low. So gun ownership appears to have no causal connection to that trend, only coincidental.

---

Mass shooting frequency however, does appear directly linked to increased gun quantities and access. The best example is Australia where they were averaging one mass shooting every few years (compare that to the US where it is closer to one every 2 weeks). Since they amended their gun laws in 96, they have had 0.

0<- zip. None. Nota. Zero.

And they didn't ban all guns to do that either.

---

And Australia also saw a pleasant drop in both suicide by gun and gun rates overall. Both dropped and have stayed lower than previously. It's a very similar trend to that seen in the UK when people switched from coal to electric heat. The impulsive option for suicide was removed and people who otherwise would have killed themselves in a depressive moment, did not. And continue to not kill themselves thanks to better gun laws.

Aussie violent crime stats since 96 (where all the data I can find seems to limit itself to): http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html
It would seem that violent crime isn't declining everywhere...

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
Seems the declining firearm use in murder trend began in 69, rather than 96

Stats penguin awaaaaaay!

(November 30, 2013 at 9:30 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: Aussie violent crime stats since 96 (where all the data I can find seems to limit itself to): http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html
It would seem that violent crime isn't declining everywhere...

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
States the declining firearm use in murder trend began in 63, rather than in 96

Stats penguin awaaaaaay!

There is no decreasing trend since '93. I believe there was legislation in '93 as well, I don't recall from the last time I looked.

Violent crime rate is up since '96, but that is misleading in at least one sense, because was it up in '96 or down in '96 and the rates are lower now than prior to that? That website has a lot of good data (I have trudged through it before), but it can be tedious to tease it all out.

In any event, while the violent crime rate (aka, assaults) is up, deaths and deaths by firearm are down. I would not mind living in a society where violent crime resulted in injury instead of death. Especially if we could curb the mass shootings.

---

And I said "globally" implying that if one were to look at the average violent crime rate for all developed nations over the last few decades, more are going down than up.

Aka assaults AND sexual assaults...

(November 30, 2013 at 9:41 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 9:40 pm)Stue Denim Wrote: Aka assaults AND sexual assaults...

Sexual assaults does not appear statistically significant. It would be difficult to say that increase is real.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent...sault.html

It doesn't appear statistically significant? You've done a test? Or you're looked at the graph and because it includes normal assaults makes an increase of that size difficult to discern.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent...sault.html

Tell me, does that appear to be statistically significant?
Does the decline in homicide appear to be statistically significant? It's a flat line on that graph hur hur.

An observation I have noted (as I have gone to multiple forums where this debate has been occurring) is that in general, theists more commonly side with pro-gun sentiments. To the point of "pry it from my cold dead fingers because Obama is coming for your guns and freedom and all the liberals are helping him". That is clearly a generalization but it is intriguing. I wonder if it has something to do with increased religiosity in rural areas that correlates with gun opinions? Or is gun ownership and gun advocacy something close to religion now?

---

(November 30, 2013 at 9:47 pm)Stue Denim Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 9:41 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

Sexual assaults does not appear statistically significant. It would be difficult to say that increase is real.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent...sault.html

It doesn't appear statistically significant? You've done a test? Or you're looked at the graph that because it includes normal assaults makes an increase of that size hard to discern.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent...sault.html

Tell me, does that appear to be statistically significant?
Does the decline in homicide appear to be statistically significant? It's a flat line on that graph hur hur.

That is no longer rate. That is total number reported. What you want to bet that mirrors population growth?

---

Rate =/= to total number reported for the whole population

---

And a statistical test would be pretty easy actually. That trend looks like nothing more than variability about an average.

For personal reasons I refuse to photograph my firearms. I have provided this link for anyone who cares to see a website photo of my newest revolver. Enjoy.

(94-78)/78 = 20.5%

A 20 percent increase, to 94 per 100,000.
Sure, I'm willing to be that the increase we're seeing in that graph isn't entirely down to population growth.

Easy? Please do.