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:

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.

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Pissed_Macman]

Wow, does it bother you guys that all this debate is accomplishing absolutely nothing?

[pofnlice]

Isn't that exactly the point of any debate...all talk no action....it's why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

[flap]

What, you mean how here we're thinking but not doing anything, and in those two cases it's been the other way around?

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by AmericanBastard:
Isn't that exactly the point of any debate...all talk no action....it's why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, that IS the point of debate: to avoid having to resort to drastic action.

[Pissed_Macman]

quote:Originally posted by AmericanBastard:
Isn't that exactly the point of any debate...all talk no action....it's why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's the point of this entire website!

[AmericanBastard]

Right....
So no talks or attempts to come to manageable terms have been made with Iraq since Desert storm...Ok I gotcha, 10 yrars later, after ignoring them, for those ten years, we just up and invaded...you're right...DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...how mmuch talk you want???

And Afghanistan has been doing the same things since The USSR left in the early 80's...no one ever tried talking to them as they destroyed relevant perices of world history, masacred thousands over fanatic beliefs and oppressed anyone who didn't have exactly the same religeous beliefs as them for 20 years +.

Just a question, how much of a threat, and how many crimes against humanity does a regime have to do before we or any other nation for that matter can decide that the talks are useless...by the topics posted here, it's obviously more than a few hundred thousand deaths over a ten or 20 year period.  Not to mention open hostility to neighbors and attempts to become worldwide players, or saturation of the globe with terrorist cells....What would you like to see...

I get it, let me melt down all my guns, convince all my freinds to go awol, and we all just quit.  As long as we talk there is no need for a military.  I would like to meet you in person, then take you a few places I've been, and let you see what I've seen.  You probably would have a different view.  Have you ever dealt with an entire culture that believes it's all about being the strongest???  Anything you do could be viewed as a sign of weakness and from the time it's observed you will be treated as an inferior?

How much death over how many years would be adequate to you?  Or, as long as it's not you and yours getting killed, is it infinite?  Look beyond your own front lawn.

[Laukev7]

quote: So no talks or attempts to come to manageable terms have been made with Iraq since Desert storm...

In fact, that's why we wonder why the Bush regime suddenly wanted to attack them.

   

quote: 10 yrars later, after ignoring them, for those ten years, we just up and invaded

Again, why?

   

quote: And Afghanistan has been doing the same things since The USSR left in the early 80's

Only because the CIA and the ISI planted them there. By the way, it was the Taleban who chased the USSR out of Afghanistan, and it was precisely for that dirty task that they were created and supported by the CIA.

http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/cia-talib.htm
http://www1.minn.net/~nup/6nov2001.htm

   

quote: Just a question, how much of a threat, and how many crimes against humanity does a regime have to do before we or any other nation for that matter can decide that the talks are useless...by the topics posted here, it's obviously more than a few hundred thousand deaths over a ten or 20 year period. Not to mention open hostility to neighbors and attempts to become worldwide players, or saturation of the globe with terrorist cells....What would you like to see...

You are absolutely correct. But there's no need yet to attack the United States to get rid of the Bush regime; just voting him and his PNAC goons out of office and bringing them to court should be enough.

   

quote: convince all my freinds to go awol

Like George and Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, John Arsecroft and many others have done, you mean?

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

   

quote: I would like to meet you in person, then take you a few places I've been, and let you see what I've seen. You probably would have a different view.

What would that change? I would only be even more disgusted with our western colonnial policies than I already am. The problem with your assessement of the political situation is that you have witnessed all the horrors, but you don't know understand the true cause of the problem.

   

quote: Have you ever dealt with an entire culture that believes it's all about being the strongest???

I'm not sure what culture you're talking about.

   

quote: How much death over how many years would be adequate to you? Or, as long as it's not you and yours getting killed, is it infinite? Look beyond your own front lawn.

Sometimes the problem lies not beyond the front lawn, but in the backyard.

[ November 14, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[solarismka]

I don't know much about gun laws. but as far as trigger happies are concerned.  I think guns are a problem.  The U.S. has prooven that on countless occasions.

For crying out loud, they the only people in this day an age to have a trigger happy president.  If anything this alone has made america a moving target and maby a just one as well.  So quite natrualy if the presedent can't even control himself then what does that tell the world about ordinary citizens?

I'm very glad though that people are just walking around with guns and not carrying WMD.  Hay it could be possible...  

Also, since america seems to be the only country with that law, its also has one of the highest records of homocides.  So much of feeling safe eh?

Of course throw John 'voyer' Ashcroft in the mix and America has no real rights in the first place.  

Thanks bush!

I'm personaly more worried about the control that M$ has over the dull population.

It seems the computer is more mightier than the gun and with billy g thats alota power!

just my two cents

[AmericanBastard]

The problem lies in World complacency and continuing talks over dead issues.  I am by no means saying bush will go into the hall of fame...but at least he did something...and something is better than nothing.  He risked and acheived political suicide to do what he believed right.  Yes, his money is from oil.  He probably will set up something to benefit him when he is elected out.  That's unethical, and that is also life.  The poor and middle class do not have the power, the wealthy do.  Always have always will.  Democratic governments were created by the wealthy.  Maybe to disuade the middles and poor to beleive they actually are making a difference.  Guns are legal in America.  People die every day in every country by millions of different means.  Who cares, honestly.  We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.  Who cares whomever doesn't like.  Even if you don't agree, the real issue isn't what should we have done.  It's what are we going to do now.  The answer, nothing.  We're going to sit and watch as politicians make themselves richer, the poor poorer and keep the middle class thinking they are something.  whatever you believe, the only thing that can be done now is rebuild and leave, which we will.  Just like Japan and Germany, we will do such a good job, they will threaten our all ready falterring economic strength.  Don't worry, America shouldn't be around much longer, name one democracy that's survived more than a couple of thousand years...world society timeline speaking of course, a millenium or two isn't that long.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by AmericanBastard:
Right....

Just a question, how much of a threat, and how many crimes against humanity does a regime have to do before we or any other nation for that matter can decide that the talks are useless...

Look at "Bush & co". After WWII, not a single dictator has done so many crimes against humanity.
Most people just follow "Bush & co" like sheep.
...wir haben es nicht gew