I think that you understand that we don't care.

The US already saved your Ass once with our guns anyways!

Let's go back to page 1 -- what were you trying to say here? From how I read it, you are saying it's not guns (or cocaine) but how the person uses it? I could be wrong in how I read your post, but doesn't that point the responsibility to the PERSON and not the implement that was used?

Now by your most recent arguments, you are saying that because there are a lot of gun-related deaths in the USA, guns are to blame and not the people?

All I'm trying to say, by looking at all the numbers that take into account total homicide and suicide deaths (not just those by guns), the numbers between some countries aren't that much different.

How about this: There's a lot of terrorist activity in the world and since terrorists are doing their actions in the name of Allah, it's the religion that's to blame.

Same argument. And similarly stupid.

Ahahaha nigga please....if we go that way. We europeans build your country...sad reply to a sad statement.

Come up with something better man, dont go the idiot baddog way.

Ok, simple question:

Yes or no:

No guns, no gun deaths.

Dude - I'm 100% on that.


Here's my question:

Yes or no:

No guns, no murder.

No ofcourse not. Did i ever claim something else.

Next:

No guns, less murder

Yes or no.

If you mean that guns were never invented? I'd still say "No". The numbers would still indicate homicide rates by sword, knife, poison, etc. and be pretty much equal between countries.

If you mean suddenly all guns dissappeard: Then, "Yes". It would be harder to kill, so less would do it.

If you mean a country implementing new gun control laws / taking guns back from the public: "No". By stats, such actions by countries do not limit the number of gun deaths and homicide rates stay the same or continue to rise.

By my opinion (and yes, much of it is opinion regardless of stats), that's 2 "no's" and 1 "yes".

If we're in fantasy land and strictly arguing that guns can kill -- Yes they can. And without guns, murder by that object would be impossible.

But come'on. This isn't candy land and I don't get to slide down the licorice ladder.

psili, that was a good article you posted. i got your back on this one :thumbsup.



BV :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

For anyone that stll believes in his/her delusional, fantasy world that you still need a gun to protect yourself ... Simple, multiple-point question for you, sheriff:

How about a home security system instead?

Your response:
A) "Yea well, I can't afford one"
-> Then don't worry about being robbed, you don't own anything worth stealing anyway.

B) "They don't work"
-> Have you tried one? If for nothing else, the sticker on all your windows will at the very least make the robber(s) think there's gotta be an easier place to rob than yours.

C) "I can afford it, but they are too expensive"
-> How much do all your guns costs? Your 75" plasma TV? Your ATV? Your trip to Mardi Gras ... If defending your home is less important than these luxuries, then it's your priorities that first need to get straightened out.

D) "F - that, someone comes into my house I'm gonna smoke their ass."
-> Fair enough, at least your honest. But as someone pointed out here stats show clearly that the gun you worship is far more likely to end up shooting someone else than any robber. Your kid, your neighbour, your wife, your dog ... maybe even you.


So, anyone please explain, what is the argument for why you absolutely *need* to have a gun in your home?

Because every american is raised with the idea he lives in the most free country of the world so you have to totally exploit that freedom. Theyre free to own a gun so they use that freedom.

At least, thats the only good reason i can come up with.

Your article is lumping in suicide with homicide, and basing its conclusions on the combined numbers. However, it is self-evident that there is no good reason to do so.

When looking only at homicide rates, the US scores significantly worse than any other western country (including Japan), even according to your little article.
Now, what the pro-gun people are saying is that without guns, people would just kill in other ways. Is this the case?
In western countries where guns are banned, non-firearm homicides are on a similar level as in the US. In the US, however, firearm homicides are WAY higher than in those countries. This sure does seem to suggest that more guns = more homicides.


Now, one could also look at your argument that "by ratio per capita, America has more fucked up people than other countries". If this is the case, should those fucked up people have guns? What purpose does that serve except for fighting overpopulation? :glugglug

I am not disputing the fact that the more guns are in a society the more gun related incidents are going to be occur. But, as mentioned before, legal gun owners are not the ones committing the crimes, it the thieves and other delinquents who would have committed the crime anyways. I think if you want to really have a valid argument, you need to find some numbers on the amount of registered guns that were used to commit a crime versus the amount of stolen or illegaly obtained guns used to commit a crime. I think then your argument might not have as much clout. :2 cents:

Again, as stated numerous times before in this thread, there are plenty of people who own guns and use them for other things than self defense, such as hunting or sport shooting. They have shotguns on cruise ships, do you think thats incase someone gets rowdy and needs to be shot with a shotgun? Of course not, its because once you get out to sea you can go skeet shooting off the side of the ship. The people who own rifles and handguns and keep them locked in a safe in the basement of their house, do they do that incase someone breaks in, they can run down 2 or 3 stories to the basement, unlock the gun case, run back upstairs, adn defend their home? No, they have them so that on the weekends or during hunting season they can go out and target shoot, or go hunting. And by the way, its been proven that hunting is good for the animal population, which is why they allow it in the first place.