Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Firearms debate (formerly Symantec Firewall blocks freedom)
Pissed_Macman:
There's no need for this debate, guys. We should just shoot the people who wanna take away our guns. What can they do after they're dead? Nothing, that's what.
Er... I have to go play some more Unreal Tournament now.
dumbassnemesis:
Yea shoot em all and let god sort em out.
(This is X11 from some old trolling account one of my machines still had a cookie for).
lazygamer:
quote:Originally posted by Flap
I think he was asking if you have any evidence to support this statement:
--- End quote ---
Yes, and I was demonstrating that not every thing in the world needs evidence.
quote:Originally said by Calum
In the same way as people divorce and fight and beat each other up and get pregnant at 13 and drink to excess in the UK because it is on TV, people in the US shoot each other because it's on TV. it is that simple. in canada, there are something like 4 times as many guns per head of population than there are in the US. guess what, there are a TENTH of the gun deaths. why is this? there's something unique about the USA's media and culture. This has in some ways affected other countries, but not to the same extent, especially while other countries can obsess over sex, drink, drugs etc. whatever tickles the local fancy.
--- End quote ---
As a Canadian Calum, I can tell you that Canada is not a vastly different place from America(ok I have not been to America ). Canadians watch American movies, and American TV all the time. We speak the same language, our suburbs and towns look the same, alot of our slang is probably the same. I think both these countries are the same culture, but there is subtle differences and not-so subtle differences.
What I'm saying is that we are exposed to the same media, so why is Canada sane and America insane?
Oh and do you mean mean gun deaths per capita? Remember Canada has 30 million people, US 300 million. Furthermore, you should take into account violent deaths by non-gun means. All this proves is that gun control(which Canada has) reduces deaths from guns, not deaths in general. And remember, suicides and accidents do not count(I've heard that these are added to gun death tallies).
quote:
in the USA, more people died from gunshot wounds in the last 2 years alone than the whole Vietnam War
--- End quote ---
1)Last 2 years alone? So does this mean that every 2 years, for a long time, more people died from gunshot wounds than the whole vietnam war? What if the last 2 years have been unusually bad?
2)Oh and how much did the deathtoll exceed Vietnam? By 10 people? By 100 people? By 1000 people?
3)58000 Americans died in Vietnam. Is that alot? Before you think that is, consider ALL the other ways people die each year. Chances are the deathtoll for all other causes of death, when added up, greatly exceeds 58000. What am I refering to? Drug overdoses, car accidents, general accidents, blunt trauma, stab wounds etc.
quote:
- by contrast, Japan with a population of 120 million has lost the number of young men to gunshot wounds in a year that is lost in a single weekend in New York City
--- End quote ---
Yes, but have you ever considered that people are murdered by other methods? Such as knives, clubs, and fists. Maybe gun control, and a lack of long established gun culture, really does keep guns away from everyone. Great! But people really will find ways to kill each other.
quote:
- armed robbery is 100 times the rate of Japan
--- End quote ---
Ok now this I have no retort to. That doesn't mean it's an accurate statistic though. The site uses the previous two points incorrectly, so can they be trusted? I feel I have shown that the two points they used aren't as applicable when closely examined, what do you think Flap?
flap:
quote:1)Last 2 years alone? So does this mean that every 2 years, for a long time, more people died from gunshot wounds than the whole vietnam war? What if the last 2 years have been unusually bad?
--- End quote ---
There's no reason why the number of gun-related killings would have been significantly higher in any recent 2 year period than in any other. And even if the 2 years in question were "particularly bad," unless you mean "1000s of times the norm" then the number is still going to be enormous.
quote:2)Oh and how much did the deathtoll exceed Vietnam? By 10 people? By 100 people? By 1000 people?
3)58000 Americans died in Vietnam. Is that alot? Before you think that is, consider ALL the other ways people die each year. Chances are the deathtoll for all other causes of death, when added up, greatly exceeds 58000. What am I refering to? Drug overdoses, car accidents, general accidents, blunt trauma, stab wounds etc.
--- End quote ---
You must be joking, surely. Is almost 60,000 people "a lot"? Do you need me to answer that? And your point about the total deaths from other causes is irrelevant, since the whole point of that statistic is that this many died purely from gunshot wounds.
quote:Yes, but have you ever considered that people are murdered by other methods? Such as knives, clubs, and fists. Maybe gun control, and a lack of long established gun culture, really does keep guns away from everyone. Great! But people really will find ways to kill each other
--- End quote ---
It isn't true that in other countries we have the same number of murders but by different means. As I've said before, this isn't the case because it's much more difficult to kill people with knives, fists etc. You can't do a drive-by stabbing, for example.
quote:Ok now this I have no retort to. That doesn't mean it's an accurate statistic though. The site uses the previous two points incorrectly, so can they be trusted? I feel I have shown that the two points they used aren't as applicable when closely examined, what do you think Flap?
--- End quote ---
I don't see how the other points aren't applicable. I could understand you questioning the accuracy if there was only a small difference, for example if the armed robberies rate was quoted as being, say, 130% the American rate, but 1000%? How innacurate do you think they could be?
[ November 12, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]
lazygamer:
quote:Originally posted by Flap
There's no reason why the number of gun-related killings would have been significantly higher in any recent 2 year period than in any other. And even if the 2 years in question were "particularly bad," unless you mean "1000s of times the norm" then the number is still going to be enormous.
--- End quote ---
What I'm getting at, is that maybe 20 years ago the numbers weren't so high. Yet 20 years ago guns were probably still quite common in America. This only tells me that in the last two years there have been alot of deaths from guns.
quote:You must be joking, surely. Is almost 60,000 people "a lot"? Do you need me to answer that? And your point about the total deaths from other causes is irrelevant, since the whole point of that statistic is that this many died purely from gunshot wounds.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, no joke here. I don't consider the other causes irrelevant, because alot of people die everyday from many different causes. If firearms killed more than all other causes combined, than you'd be on to something. This just shows me that close to 60000 people die from firearms.
Are you positive about 60000 people dying in two years from firearms? Adding up all homicide(and legal intervention)statistics for 1996, for age groups up to 44, I got 16717. Over two years(assuming for simplicity that the numbers stay the same) that is 33434 deaths. This does not take into account the 45+ age group because homicides are included as all other causes. Now when they say homicide, they mean all forms, not just firearms.
It's very possible that more people are dying in the last 2 years, but do you see how big of a jump 60000 homicides(from firearms alone) would be? Perhaps your website is padding this statistic with accients and sucides?
How many people overall died in 1996? 2,293,629 people. True, this is the total of all age categories, and I wasn't able to calculate the homicides for over 45. Even if we raised the number of homicides to 30000, that still doesn't account for even 2% of the deaths in 1996.
Well, at least I got evidence today.
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc
quote:Originally said by Flap:
It isn't true that in other countries we have the same number of murders but by different means. As I've said before, this isn't the case because it's much more difficult to kill people with knives, fists etc. You can't do a drive-by stabbing, for example.
--- End quote ---
That is a good point. Drive by shootings, efficient long range assasinations, full automatic
slaughtering, these are all examples of how guns are more of a danger to society. However, I'm thinking of homicides or confrontations. These would usually be at short ranges and on foot. In the end, someone is gonna get killed or badly injured.
Interesting thing I found http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm
As you can see, despite guns being so popular in the US for crime, there have been a sizeable amount of murders commited by non-firearm weapons. Why?
quote:Originally posted by Flap
I don't see how the other points aren't applicable. I could understand you questioning the accuracy if there was only a small difference, for example if the armed robberies rate was quoted as being, say, 130% the American rate, but 1000%? How innacurate do you think they could be?
--- End quote ---
Well you gave me a run for my money logic wise, so I had to re-examine my points.
Sometimes anti-gun sites post misconceptions or even lie. In all fairness pro-gun sites probably do the same. If your statistic is definitly accurate, than that is very interesting! It's just that the difference seems so amazing, 100 times the rate of the US! I have trouble imagining that firearms could make such a huge difference, but it could be true.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version