Post: #26

(11-23-2010 11:47 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  @iknowexactly - great post again. Those wall street scum are robbing the country blind, while the ordinary man has to cutback on everything.

Do you really think the gov/riches care about others? No.

Post: #27

I might take the time to dig up some hard stats one day. I really don't care to much to search around for these stats, I know you are dissapointed.

Here are a few ideas out of memory that should get you started though.

- Jaimaican muder rate, check that out. Gun control seems to be working real well in Jamaica. Crooks + guns / non crooks no guns.

- Colombian murder rate. Guns are not completely illegal, however it is not easy to obtain one legally. This is not all Narco wars either, more often than not its random street crime. It has dropped recently, but historically very high. Again the case of most regular citizens not owning guns but crooks owning guns.

- You mention UK gun violence. For the record they do have many more armed Police in UK than they used to. Other than that there are simply less guns, I will give you that much. However check the stabbing rates in Glasgow Scotland for example. A city of about half a million give or take, had several years of 100-130 murders (this is high, esp. when compared to many American cities double the size) over half of these muders were done by the knife and the rest by other means including guns. This is the case of crime, drugs, poverty...not just of random killings with guns as some suggest is the case here.
*Anyhow, I'm pretty sure guns are not legal in Scottland and for several years straight they were hanging in there with American cities a few times their size on the murder rate.

- How about a Chinese school stabbings in 2010 alone? 21 dead and around 90 injured? Should they outlaw any sort of edged weapon? Normal citizens going crazy for ya.

- Check out your list of mass murders using firearms to kill WAAAY before Cho at VT. You should know that many were in places where guns were either not readily available or not even legal.

- I wasn't referring to America 100 years ago. Really up until the 60's the US was a different place. That is another issue completely, which I will leave alone.

Until I go and dig through some hard stats for you, these are a few ideas off the top of my head I can give you. I hesitate to get to deep into this debate here at Roosh's place

I do encourage you to look up some of the things I've mentioned. Research something other than the last 5-10 years worth of American gun slaughters and see what you find. Germany, Japan, Korea, UK Very interesting.

Post: #28

(11-25-2010 02:30 AM)Rocco81 Wrote:  I might take the time to dig up some hard stats one day. I really don't care to much to search around for these stats, I know you are dissapointed.

To be honest, not really. Vast majority of pro-gun people I've discussed this issue did not form their opinion based on facts. Generally they got all their information from NRA newsletters and Fox news, and they never bothered to even think it critically, not to mention actually verifying what they've got. Unfortunately it makes little sense to argue with someone who doesn't have his own opinion which is based on facts. The way such discussion usually works is that someone copypastes an article or "statistics" from it, I disprove it, and he copypastes another article - all without even trying to pretend having a discussion on a topic. Makes no sense at all to me as unlike those NRA writers I'm not getting paid to do that.

So far you look similar to them. You didn't address ANY of the points I raise, and instead keep dumping some "ideas" which are not even supported by facts. You did not present any facts, just a bunch of statements from NRA propaganda which are either irrelevant, or completely not true. This makes the discussion useless. Their propaganda is so simple to disprove that it carries no value to me; if you didn't spend ten minutes to think about the article you read and verify the facts presented, why should I? I know after I do so, you'll just copypaste another article or another bunch of "ideas".

Quote:- Jaimaican muder rate
- Colombian murder rate.

You still keep bringing irrelevant examples (in this case those are 3rd world countries with a very high level of corruption and a significant criminal or anti-government activity). Why don't you compare apples vs apples, i.e. USA with other first world countries with similar culture? Why didn't you comment the statistics above showing yow well gun control works in Canada, Australia, UK comparing to USA? Why you completely ignored my comparisons?

Quote:However check the stabbing rates in Glasgow Scotland for example. A city of about half a million give or take, had several years of 100-130 murders (this is high, esp. when compared to many American cities double the size) over half of these muders were done by the knife and the rest by other means including guns.

I have given you the numbers, and I will repeat them. I'm sure you'll ignore them again as you already did, but this way it would be more obvious to everyone else:

England & Wales: firearm 0.12, total 1.45
USA: firearm 2.97, total 4.55

As you can see, total homicide rate in UK - which includes shooting, stabbing and everything else - is still half of US firearm-only homicide rate. Translation: your chance to get killed in any way in UK, stabbing included, is twice less than your chance just to get shot in US.

Quote:Until I go and dig through some hard stats for you, these are a few ideas off the top of my head I can give you.

Sorry, but there is little value in discussion one's ideas which are not supported by the facts as their value is very low. I can generate a bunch of such ideas in seconds, but again I see no value if both sides start copypasting articles from NRA and Brady. This is not a discussion.

Post: #29

England & Wales: firearm 0.12, total 1.45
USA: firearm 2.97, total 4.55
=====

Pretty interesting stats, esp. as the diff in totals between the 2 countries equals almost exactly the firearm component.

UK- non-firearm=1.33 (1.45 - .12)

US non-firearm component = 1.58 (4.55-2.97)

Passes the stats smell test.

During the process of beating or stabbing someone to death, you get a few seconds to reconsider unless you knife them right in the heart or something. Watching them helpless and bleeding can slow you down a little.
Now, guns are the efficient, American way! One shot, one kill!

=========

But I still maintain gun control is a hopeless cause in USA.

It keeps us little rats fighting while the big rats, out of sight, laugh at us and add up the profits. The big crooks don't need guns of their own. Rangers and SWAT do it for them. Infra-red equipped copters with 20mm cannon can shred and burn you and your house down around your gold-filled safe without even landing, if and when you make any real trouble for them.

Gun control debate is one of the most effective ways to divide the working class and continue the looting by the Owning class. Every job they export prob does more total harm than gun #267,456,456 in the USA.

Even if the completely unlikely event that public opinion turned in favor of gun control, how could you EVER collect the 200 million guns already out there?! Completely unrealistic and impossible.

Another rather cynical point is many/most murders might be underclass-on-underclass, and the rich don't care about that.

It's when worker bees get offed by a mentally ill cohort that people wonder about universal gun availability.

But not for long.

Gun ownership is EXPENSIVE, but Americans WANT to pay the costs.

Below, see who owns the stocks and cash--who owns YOU, unless you're really cooking in biz.
When you've got a STILL-WORSENING banana republic distribution like that, it's a deeper structural prob than gun control.

It kind of makes sense, partially, why hot USA chicks are so picky-- look at the limited number of "winners" in our game.
The bottom 60-80% have no assets left for the "productive people" to "earn" in the "free market."

(When the 1% owns your apartment bldg, your bank, and your govt, that's a "free market", right? Everyone's on a level playing field.
Sure it is.)

Post: #30

Oldnemesis: I'm not trying to write pages on this. First of all I do not know why you seem to associate me with NRA stats and NRA members. I am not a member nor have I posted any stats from their site. I guess you think anyone that does not agree with you on Gun Control is a card carrying NRA member.

- Your point on the avilability of fire arms and violent crimes is not lost on me. My point to you, is that IMO gun control does not work either, hence mentioning Jamaica and places like it. Just because they are 3rd world does not remove the fact that guns in these places are not legal. Again my point about gun control not working. You started in about ring wing and NRA and this and that, I'm simply saying gun control is not a sound option to deter murder.

- You keep posting crime stats which are very telling, but again this is not the regular citizens and crackpots shooting up schools. This is the poverty, drugs and gangs talking.

-Your comment on Wales and England is not UK. UK would also include Scottland and N.Ireland which would change your stats. UK and Australia etc to USA is valid, however to really do that properly we need to look at poverty, Immigration, drug abuse etc in relation to crime, not just gun ownership. England does not have the same inner city poverty and crime that we have.

- You still have not addressed things like random stabbings in China. Society or weapons?

- Terrorism is tricky. To me a guy shooting up a school and a dude strapping a bomb to himself for some non existant religous war is not that far apart, you could say the guys in Columbine could be closer to terrorism with a political/racial motive behind their attack rather than random shooting..but I guess that is up to interpretation.

Anyhow, your main point is about regular citizens shooting up people and not criminals. So, I took a moment and copied a few links for you. These are just 3 examples of 1st worlders shooting up places in countries with very limited if any gun ownership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Robert_Ryan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-kon

Post: #31

Did this thread get off topic or what? You are free to start another thread about guns.

Post: #32

Roosh, can you split the thread into two? Would be nice to continue the gun discussion, while keeping the useful thread clean.

Post: #33

(11-30-2010 08:19 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  Roosh, can you split the thread into two? Would be nice to continue the gun discussion, while keeping the useful thread clean.

Let me weigh in with real world experience in the furnace of the actual-a violent midnight home invasion in central Kenya. All your nice classroom theories about inequality or the sociopolitical consequences of gunownership won't do anything for you;this is how it will go down (if you survive):
You will find some people,particularly violent criminals aren't reasonable. You will realise your life is in the hands of young men who've taken psychotropic substances inhibiting already poor impulse control. These same fucktards want money,your hardearned cash which you don't have on you at present-WHAT DO YOU DO? WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?
Think carefully before answering-IMHO, guns were invented precisely to deal with these situations.

Post: #34

(12-08-2010 03:03 AM)afronoob Wrote:  You will find some people,particularly violent criminals aren't reasonable. You will realise your life is in the hands of young men who've taken psychotropic substances inhibiting already poor impulse control. These same fucktards want money,your hardearned cash which you don't have on you at present-WHAT DO YOU DO? WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?
Think carefully before answering-IMHO, guns were invented precisely to deal with these situations.

This all sounds good in theory, but in practice everyone can open FBI UCR for 2009 and check the violent crime statistics - this is exactly what a gun should save you from, right? And you can see that violent crime in California (where gun ownership is severely restricted) differs from crime in Texas (where it is pretty much not restricted) less than 10%.

And of course homicide rates, listing firearm homicide rate, and total homicide rate per 100,000:

Australia: firearm 0.31, total 1.57
England & Wales: firearm 0.12, total 1.45
Canada: firearm 0.54, total 1.58
USA: firearm 2.97, total 4.55

As you see, just the homicide rate by firearm only is twice larger than the combined homicide rate in Australia and UK, and almost twice larger than in Canada. Comparing firearm homicide rates, the US firearm homicide rate is almost 25 (!) times higher than UK. Somehow all those criminals in US are not scared that you might have a gun.

Post: #35

(11-28-2010 10:43 PM)Rocco81 Wrote:  Oldnemesis: I'm not trying to write pages on this. First of all I do not know why you seem to associate me with NRA stats and NRA members. I am not a member nor have I posted any stats from their site. I guess you think anyone that does not agree with you on Gun Control is a card carrying NRA member.

I apologize if you're not. The reason I suspected you do is because you do exactly as they do - copy-paste some thoughts as known facts without providing any references to support them. And when I prove (with links) that what they posted is not true, they just ignore it and copy-paste another piece.

Quote:- Your point on the avilability of fire arms and violent crimes is not lost on me. My point to you, is that IMO gun control does not work either, hence mentioning Jamaica and places like it. Just because they are 3rd world does not remove the fact that guns in these places are not legal. Again my point about gun control not working. You started in about ring wing and NRA and this and that, I'm simply saying gun control is not a sound option to deter murder.

Being 3rd world has ALL about it. Just having the law in the books is not enough - you also need to enforce it. This is where UK differs from Jamaica. There you can have all kinds of laws, but when the police officers themselves sell dope, what kind of law enforcement would you expect?

Quote:- You keep posting crime stats which are very telling, but again this is not the regular citizens and crackpots shooting up schools. This is the poverty, drugs and gangs talking.

Could you please list school shootings in US which were related to gang activity or were done by drugged people? I'm asking because gang members, despite being criminals, rarely go on shooting spree - they typically shoot other gang members. Cho wasn't a gang member either. For drugged people it is also wouldn't be typical because this is not something one would do by impulse - this is typically a well-planned and prepared crime.

Poverty is not an excuse either. Canada, Australia and UK are not significantly richer than US, if at all.

Quote:-Your comment on Wales and England is not UK. UK would also include Scottland and N.Ireland which would change your stats. UK and Australia etc to USA is valid, however to really do that properly we need to look at poverty, Immigration, drug abuse etc in relation to crime, not just gun ownership. England does not have the same inner city poverty and crime that we have.

Again, I don't see how poverty affects it. School shootings are usually done by kids or youngsters, who often commit suicide afterwards. It is not like they're affected by poverty.

Quote:- You still have not addressed things like random stabbings in China. Society or weapons?

China is very different from US on all aspects, from culture to economics to politics. This is why it is important to compare countries with similar culture, political and economic levels.

Quote:Anyhow, your main point is about regular citizens shooting up people and not criminals. So, I took a moment and copied a few links for you. These are just 3 examples of 1st worlders shooting up places in countries with very limited if any gun ownership.

This is another argument very popular in NRA - that gun ban does not prevent all homicides (followed by the list of them). Apparently those people believe that, by analogy, as soon as you have laws against rape, there will be no more rapes - and if there are, this means the law doesn't work and was useless. No, it does not. No law enforcement is perfect, and even if you totally ban gun ownership, there still will be some people with guns - police, army, prison guards. And some of them might go crazy. So some homicides will still happen. However there will be LESS homicides, and this is supported by statistics I posted above, proving that there ARE less homicides.