guns or no guns?
Replies
-
Hahahahahah! Wikipedia is considered a serious research source these days?
Funny, I don't see anyone suggesting that we ban automobiles just because some idiots drink and drive and kill people or intentionally use their vehicle as a weapon to kill people.
C'mon, folks. There are a lot of legal and sane people out there that DON'T and WON'T go nuts and kill someone with a gun. A small percentage of people actually end up doing something heinous like that, so why should all of us pay the price?
That same thinking could be applied to fast food. Just because some people can't be responsible and go completely overboard doesn't mean NO ONE should have access to it.0 -
Someone please tell me why guns are being compared to baseball bats, knives, large capacity trucks?
You DO realise that the sole purpose of guns is to kill or seriously wound, right?
But whatever, I'm just happy I live in a country where my kids can go to school without some kid stealing his Father's legal gun and shooting everyone. Or go to the cinema without some guy getting his legally obtained guns and shooting into the crowd.
American gun culture is madness to me. Never understood it, and never will.
R.I.P to those who died.0 -
Well that person is just lovely. What a great human.
That sign is awesome!!
No it's not.
Nope. It's not. Sad that people's frenzy over guns will lead them to put their neighbour in danger. Charming people.0 -
Someone please tell me why guns are being compared to baseball bats, knives, large capacity trucks?
You DO realise that the sole purpose of guns is to kill or seriously wound, right?
But whatever, I'm just happy I live in a country where my kids can go to school without some kid stealing his Father's legal gun and shooting everyone. Or go to the cinema without some guy getting his legally obtained guns and shooting into the crowd.
American gun culture is madness to me. Never understood it, and never will.
R.I.P to those who died.
they don't, i said it a few times because it is that stupid and simplistic of an idea0 -
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is a serious source.Hahahahahah! Wikipedia is considered a serious research source these days?
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/cts-data-collection.html
Go nuts.0 -
stats can:
So people still kill people without guns?
As you can see, they do. Unfortunately.
But still a lot less than with guns. And, although our rate of homocide without guns is higher (obviously), it's still less than America's.0 -
The answer is always guns. More guns.0
-
I disagree with that attitude. I support your right to own a gun. As a matter of fact, as a veteran, I defended your right to own a gun. That said, I am anti-gun.However the question should read:
but, in one word, post whether you are "anti-constitution" or "pro-constitution" or "neither"
Not wanting to own a gun doesn't make you anti-gun. You not wanting anyone else to own a gun makes you anti-gun, IMO.0 -
stats can:
Counting the seconds before someone says "Yeah but America has more people"...0 -
Someone please tell me why guns are being compared to baseball bats, knives, large capacity trucks?
You DO realise that the sole purpose of guns is to kill or seriously wound, right?
But whatever, I'm just happy I live in a country where my kids can go to school without some kid stealing his Father's legal gun and shooting everyone. Or go to the cinema without some guy getting his legally obtained guns and shooting into the crowd.
American gun culture is madness to me. Never understood it, and never will.
R.I.P to those who died.
they don't, i said it a few times because it is that stupid and simplistic of an idea
Apparently, you've never heard of target shooting, trap shooting, or skeet shooting,,,0 -
0 -
stats can:
Counting the seconds before someone says "Yeah but America has more people"...
i lol'd so loud at this0 -
stats can:
Counting the seconds before someone says "Yeah but America has more people"...
Well having more people does increase the statistical likelihood of having a crazy person go on a shooting rampage.0 -
pro-gun0
-
Someone please tell me why guns are being compared to baseball bats, knives, large capacity trucks?
You DO realise that the sole purpose of guns is to kill or seriously wound, right?
But whatever, I'm just happy I live in a country where my kids can go to school without some kid stealing his Father's legal gun and shooting everyone. Or go to the cinema without some guy getting his legally obtained guns and shooting into the crowd.
American gun culture is madness to me. Never understood it, and never will.
R.I.P to those who died.
they don't, i said it a few times because it is that stupid and simplistic of an idea
Apparently, you've never heard of target shooting, trap shooting, or skeet shooting,,,
Hell its even in the Olympics! All those shooters in the Olympics are just gun toting nuts anyways.0 -
Pro gun0
-
yeah it is! I bet it made the neighbor think twice. if i had a sign like this I bet the guy that broke in to my house would have not done it and in turn would have never been shot
Well that person is just lovely. What a great human.
That sign is awesome!!
No it's not.0 -
stats can:
Counting the seconds before someone says "Yeah but America has more people"...
Well having more people does increase the statistical likelihood of having a crazy person go on a shooting rampage.
it is factored in, it is per 100,000 people. we aren't laughing to be mean. we are laughing because the stats are correct and takes these things into account.0 -
This data is inaccurate without corresponding population comparisons as well...stats can:
So people still kill people without guns?
As you can see, they do. Unfortunately.
But still a lot less than with guns. And, although our rate of homocide without guns is higher (obviously), it's still less than America's.
Rank Country Population
3 United States 313,232,032
22 United Kingdom 62,698,360
37 Canada 34,030,588
55 Australia 21,766,712
Technically Canada's population is like 1/10th that of the United States....so their gun related death rate is higher, no?0 -
Neither. Either way you are pissing people off.0
-
Neither. Either way you are pissing people off.
better to be pissed off rather than pissed on. :flowerforyou:0 -
This data is inaccurate without corresponding population comparisons as well...stats can:
So people still kill people without guns?
As you can see, they do. Unfortunately.
But still a lot less than with guns. And, although our rate of homocide without guns is higher (obviously), it's still less than America's.
per 100,000 people..................search statscan, i am too lazy and bothered. prevalence is prevalence. the picture should give you a clear idea. this isn't my thesis and i will continue to be lazy.0 -
To the people saying the Batman tradgedy would have turned out differently if someone had a gun on them, I think you're living in a movie. Seriously. This is real life, NOT a movie.
Like someone would have saved the day and shot him down, and all would have been okay. Oh, really?
How about, if his LEGALLY OBTAINED guns didn't exist or weren't sold to him, those people wouldn't have been killed, least not by bullets.
You can't be serious. So you think that if James Holmes had been unable to buy his weapons at Bass Pro that he just would have said "well, maybe I won't commit this heinous crime after all. Probably going to be too much effort to find guns". Please. He just would have paid more and gotten even wilder ones from the underground dealers. He planned this for several years. You are being really naive.
Yep. Which is why this sort of thing happens on a regular basis in America and almost never here.
But it's just a coincedence, right?
Our wannabe gangsters find ways to get guns, and they kill their stupid little rivals. Rarely innocents, and when they do, it's not a mass shooting.
But it's all coincedence.0 -
If there were no guns how would my family bond? And one person in that theater with a gun could have stopped that sicko before that many people died.
Not necessarily... unless the person was an incredibly good shot... because the psycho was wearing a bullet proof vest and a riot helmet....
Do you think said madman focusing on one person, instead of randomly shooting into a crowd of 150 is better or worse of a situation?
Also, regardless of body armor...taking a pistol round will hurt/break ribs/knock wind out ect. Body armor does not make you invincible.
I get that... and I agree... but I don't think the other shooter (if one was around because seriously, who thinks, "Man, I better take my gun to the movies... there might be some psycho shooting up the place tonight!") would have been able to take him out as many seem to suggest... even if he was a good shot, there would be high risk for collateral damage, with people trying to escape.
Had this discussion with people at work. They know I train- extensively- in tactical shooting and they all said "Too bad you were not there- you could have stopped it" I told them nope- I would not have taken a shot- they all went :noway: and asked why not. The reasons was:
First off I am not a cop. I have no duty to protect and defend anyone but myself and my family. During an active shooter situation I am headed in the opposite direction and will engage ONLY if I have no choice (i.e. hes between me and the exit, I am a target, etc). Police are trained to respond with overwhelming force and shoot down an active shooter- I sure as hell dont want to be engaging the threat when the cop or another CCWer sees me, decides I am the threat and guns me down.
As for the Aurora shooter- no one can be condition Red all the time. I would never have expected that attack. Trying to engage this threat in a smoke filled, darkened theater with a strobe effect occuring from the movie still playing, a hundred plus people screaming and running everywhere, others on the ground bleeding out, other people in costume, gunshots muffled by the movie, plus the threat was wearing all black? How do you pick him out of all that in the time you have?
My training for an active shooter is to go for the head or four across the pelvis as many active shooters now wear body armor. This guy owuld have been a bear to bring down- he was wearing armor across the pelvis and a head shot in these conditions would be extremely difficult to make (plus his head was armored on most sides and a gas mask makes going for the head shot even more problematic). Add in the fact that I am a good guy- every bullet that leaves my muzzle has a lawyer attached to it. If I could have stopped the shooter but killed two innocents in the exchange I am looking at prison time and lawsuits. Plus a pistol versus rifle? no contest- I carry a pistol because I am not expecting a gun fight, if I am expecting one I am going for my rifle!
I'm pretty sure we're on opposing sides, but I like this. It's realistic.0 -
had someone been carrying during one of these tragic events...id be willing to bet the body count would be lower.
try that *kitten* in NH, TX...any other big 2nd amendment state...
What state is Fort Hood in?
point goes to you. touche.
You are not allowed to carry firearms on a military base unless you are an MP.
thanks. i'm taking his point back lol.
thanks to you too mustgetmuscle!0 -
To the people saying the Batman tradgedy would have turned out differently if someone had a gun on them, I think you're living in a movie. Seriously. This is real life, NOT a movie.
Like someone would have saved the day and shot him down, and all would have been okay. Oh, really?
How about, if his LEGALLY OBTAINED guns didn't exist or weren't sold to him, those people wouldn't have been killed, least not by bullets.
You can't be serious. So you think that if James Holmes had been unable to buy his weapons at Bass Pro that he just would have said "well, maybe I won't commit this heinous crime after all. Probably going to be too much effort to find guns". Please. He just would have paid more and gotten even wilder ones from the underground dealers. He planned this for several years. You are being really naive.
i actually think you are more naive. had he not had easy access he would have gotten less quality and less quantity. and had it taken him longer, may have been caught. when things are more difficult they don't always go as planned, they have to revise their plans. that is why gangsters here have their illegal guns, but they are few and far between and NO ONE is prepared to shoot someone that is being shot in the cross fire. he would have still planned something, probably, but would it be to the extent, the amount of deaths, as quickly as it was? i highly doubt it.
^0 -
To the people saying the Batman tradgedy would have turned out differently if someone had a gun on them, I think you're living in a movie. Seriously. This is real life, NOT a movie.
Like someone would have saved the day and shot him down, and all would have been okay. Oh, really?
How about, if his LEGALLY OBTAINED guns didn't exist or weren't sold to him, those people wouldn't have been killed, least not by bullets.
You can't be serious. So you think that if James Holmes had been unable to buy his weapons at Bass Pro that he just would have said "well, maybe I won't commit this heinous crime after all. Probably going to be too much effort to find guns". Please. He just would have paid more and gotten even wilder ones from the underground dealers. He planned this for several years. You are being really naive.
Yep. Which is why this sort of thing happens on a regular basis in America and almost never here.
But it's just a coincedence, right?
Our wannabe gangsters find ways to get guns, and they kill their stupid little rivals. Rarely innocents, and when they do, it's not a mass shooting.
But it's all coincedence.
How do you disarm criminals?0 -
stats can:
Counting the seconds before someone says "Yeah but America has more people"...
Well having more people does increase the statistical likelihood of having a crazy person go on a shooting rampage.
it is factored in, it is per 100,000 people. we aren't laughing to be mean. we are laughing because the stats are correct and takes these things into account.
This graph even shows that non-fire arm related homecides are higher in this country than in the other three countries... and? We just have a higher homicide rate regardless of weapon. We probably still would regardless of whether or not we had stricter gun restrictions such as in the UK...0 -
This data is inaccurate without corresponding population comparisons as well...stats can:
So people still kill people without guns?
As you can see, they do. Unfortunately.
But still a lot less than with guns. And, although our rate of homocide without guns is higher (obviously), it's still less than America's.
And we have a winner! Dammit, I forgot to time it though.0 -
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions