Louisiana theatre shooting

DlCKThe 11-year-old was home alone when a vehicle entered the driveway. The individual knocked on all the doors and then forced entry into the residence, the Lapeer County Sheriff's Department said.
The child hid in a bedroom closet with a shotgun, police said. The bedroom and the closet were eventually forced open by the suspect.

The 11-year-old aimed the gun at the suspect and the suspect fled from the residence, police said, adding the child was not harmed during the incident.

"Her father is an avid hunter, she is familiar with weapons and inside that closet is where the gun case is," Detective sergeant Jason Parks said.

Sounds like someone was doing some B&E thinking no one was home and would have fled regardless whether the girl was holding a gun or a teddy bear.

VinnieFSounds like someone was doing some B&E thinking no one was home and would have fled regardless whether the girl was holding a gun or a teddy bear.

Lets try and stick to the facts.

DlCKLets try and stick to the facts.

From what your report says it sounds like the suspect fled without knowing if the gun was real or fake, or a real gun that was not loaded, or a real gun that was loaded. She did not shoot at the suspect, only pointed the gun at him. From this specific example, the conclusion I would draw then is that it does not take real guns to scare away intruders but only objects that look like real guns that make intruders think there is a threat to them.

I am all about home security, but this example isn't that great at being pro-gun.

DlCKLets try and stick to the facts.

those are the facts. someone broke into a home obviously thinking no one was home, then ran away when he saw someone actually was home.

this is pretty typical for burglary. they're not people who care to encounter anyone or do any harm, they just want some easy cash and to be gone. Of course he went to the master bedrooms closet, that's one of the first places you'd check for jewellery.

onenerdykidFrom what your report says it sounds like the suspect fled without knowing if the gun was real or fake, or a real gun that was not loaded, or a real gun that was loaded. She did not shoot at the suspect, only pointed the gun at him. From this specific example, the conclusion I would draw then is that it does not take real guns to scare away intruders but only objects that look like real guns that make intruders think there is a threat to them.

I am all about home security, but this example isn't that great at being pro-gun.

and it was probably more the fact he saw an actually person that scared him off than that there was a gun.

onenerdykidFrom what your report says it sounds like the suspect fled without knowing if the gun was real or fake, or a real gun that was not loaded, or a real gun that was loaded. She did not shoot at the suspect, only pointed the gun at him. From this specific example, the conclusion I would draw then is that it does not take real guns to scare away intruders but only objects that look like real guns that make intruders think there is a threat to them.

I am all about home security, but this example isn't that great at being pro-gun.

Who the fuck sees a shotgun pointed at their face and thinks "o thats fake for sure"

DlCKWho the fuck sees a shotgun pointed at their face and thinks "o thats fake for sure"

I DO I DO I DO I DO

DlCKWho the fuck sees a shotgun pointed at their face and thinks "o thats fake for sure"

Someone who clearly thought the house was unoccupied and/or didn't want to wait around long enough to find out if it was or wasn't. Seems like 2 completely obvious answers.

The fact that it needs to be a real, loaded gun is secondary given your choice of scenario that you presented.

The intruder is obviously not the Bullet Tooth Tony type.

onenerdykidSomeone who clearly thought the house was unoccupied and/or didn't want to wait around long enough to find out if it was or wasn't. Seems like 2 completely obvious answers.

The fact that it needs to be a real, loaded gun is secondary given your choice of scenario that you presented.

The intruder is obviously not the Bullet Tooth Tony type.

If there's one thing liberals hate to hear, it's the phrase, "guns save lives."

The reason such a statement sends them into a full on mouth foaming melt down is because it's absolutely true, as one 11-year-old girl from Michigan will attest to.

The girl was at home by herself when an intruder forced his way into her home and was met with a surprise he's not likely to forget.

I love stories like these.

From WNEM:

The 11-year-old was home alone when a vehicle entered the driveway. The individual knocked on all the doors and then forced entry into the residence, the Lapeer County Sheriff's Department said.

The child hid in a bedroom closet with a shotgun, police said. The bedroom and the closet were eventually forced open by the suspect.

The 11-year-old aimed the gun at the suspect and the suspect fled from the residence, police said, adding the child was not harmed during the incident.

"Her father is an avid hunter, she is familiar with weapons and inside that closet is where the gun case is," Detective sergeant Jason Parks said.
Two suspects, James Wasson and Rhonda Steward, are both in custody charged with first-degree home invasion, second-degree home invasion, and burglary tool possession.

Who wants to bet this guy needed a new pair of pants after seeing that shotgun pointed at him?

This, my friends, is exactly why the Second Amendment exists and why it's critically important to do everything in our power to protect this right from being stripped away from us by gun grabbing liberals.

It's obvious this girl's father taught her to respect and properly use firearms safely, which is one of the main pillars of responsible gun ownership.

Rather than teach children to be terrified of guns, we need to instruct them in how to properly care for and use them, being careful to instill a healthy respect for the capabilities these tools of self-defense possess.

Guns are not toys and have the power to end a human life. Firing these weapons at a person has real consequences. It's not like Call of Duty or some other first person shooter video game. These points absolutely must be stressed to kids when teaching them about firearms and gun safety.

Taking the time to instruct our children like this might save their lives.

DlCKIf there's one thing liberals hate to hear, it's the phrase, "guns save lives."

By quoting my post in your response, you are assuming that I am a liberal or that guns don't save lives. When have I ever claimed either?

I was just showing that you picked a horrible argument for the pro-gun position as it the conclusion you wanted to prove did not follow from the example you gave.

DlCKIf there's one thing liberals hate to hear, it's the phrase, "guns save lives."

Guns also kill lives. 31, 537 people died last year due to gun violence. Over half of that was suicides. 18,783 to be exact. If you have a gun in your house you're 70% more likely to use that gun on yourself than on an intruder.

DlCKThis, my friends, is exactly why the Second Amendment exists and why it's critically important to do everything in our power to protect this right from being stripped away from us by gun grabbing liberals

This is not why the Second Amendment exists- your example has nothing to do with a well regulated militia and security of a free state. You are just happy that the Second Amendment exists and that this scenario can justify gun ownership outside of being part of a militia. Keep your guns, but at least get the conditions of your argument in the right order.

DlCKThe right for citizens to own guns has a much higher value.

It's actually astonishing people like you exist

im gonna make the very safe bet that guns were banned on this premises.

believe it or not, registered gun owners follow the law.

roddy116im gonna make the very safe bet that guns were banned on this premises.

believe it or not, registered gun owners follow the law.

You know the difference between a law abiding citizin and a criminal. One bad decision.

S.J.WYou know the difference between a law abiding citizin and a criminal. One bad decision.

yeah the criminal is likely to make a bad decision?

are you high?

roddy116yeah the criminal is likely to make a bad decision?

are you high?

Seung-Hui Cho was a law abiding citizen. Virginia tech.
Dylan Roof was a law abiding citizen. Charleston.
Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen. Sandy Hook.
George Hennard was a law abiding citizen. Killeen, TX
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were both law abiding citizens. Collumbine.

See the patern?

las.It's actually astonishing people like you exist

Letting a couple handfuls of bad apples change an entire culture is idiotic. This country will revolt before it gives up its guns.

/thread

DlCKLetting a couple handfuls of bad apples change an entire culture is idiotic. This country will revolt before it gives up its guns.

/thread

Maybe when the consequences of the actions of "bad apples" are not isolated among themselves but fall upon innocent people on a routine basis, the culture is the problem.

Paedophile-PopeMaybe when the consequences of the actions of "bad apples" are not isolated among themselves but fall upon innocent people on a routine basis, the culture is the problem.

You are right, the culture did create the mental health issues those individuals experienced. Banning guns doesnt change that.

Whats the solution for the boston bombings? A ban on crockpots?

DlCKWhats the solution for the boston bombings? A ban on crockpots?

Crock pots have been used to kill a handful of people in American history, Guns will have been used to kill a handful of people by the time I finish writing this post. Your argument is stupid.

DlCKWhats the solution for the boston bombings? A ban on crockpots?

I very much believe that people are the necessary moral agents in a given scenario and as such it is their actions that kill people, whether they use a gun or a knife or a stone. A gun sitting on a table (or a nuclear missile for that matter) is no more dangerous than a stone, without the addition of a human will to alter it.

But at the same time there is a designed purpose behind each item we create, and you would be absolutely foolish to put a gun into the same category as a crockpot. One has the innate purpose to shoot an object into another object, and one is for cooking. (FYI, what is illegal are the explosive ingredients inside the crockpot and they are not constitutionally protected so it's not a proper analogy but let's roll with it).

Sitting on a table is a (normal) crockpot, a stone, a knife, and a loaded gun. If you wanted to go on a rampage, no one would ever choose any item but the loaded gun and for obvious reasons. It is the most deadly of the group and it is the easiest way to inflict the highest amount of damage/death. This is why it appeals to people looking to kill other people. This should be easy to understand, but gun advocates love equating guns to other far less inherently destructive devices since it requires a human will to be made good or bad. But this is incredibly missing the point concerning the natural purpose of guns and their distinction from other objects. If this were not the case, then gun advocates would be ok protecting their homes with knives, stones, and crockpots.

onenerdykidI very much believe that people are the necessary moral agents in a given scenario and as such it is their actions that kill people, whether they use a gun or a knife or a stone. A gun sitting on a table (or a nuclear missile for that matter) is no more dangerous than a stone, without the addition of a human will to alter it.

But at the same time there is a designed purpose behind each item we create, and you would be absolutely foolish to put a gun into the same category as a crockpot. One has the innate purpose to shoot an object into another object, and one is for cooking. (FYI, what is illegal are the explosive ingredients inside the crockpot and they are not constitutionally protected so it's not a proper analogy but let's roll with it).

Sitting on a table is a (normal) crockpot, a stone, a knife, and a loaded gun. If you wanted to go on a rampage, no one would ever choose any item but the loaded gun and for obvious reasons. It is the most deadly of the group and it is the easiest way to inflict the highest amount of damage/death. This is why it appeals to people looking to kill other people. This should be easy to understand, but gun advocates love equating guns to other far less inherently destructive devices since it requires a human will to be made good or bad. But this is incredibly missing the point concerning the natural purpose of guns and their distinction from other objects. If this were not the case, then gun advocates would be ok protecting their homes with knives, stones, and crockpots.

Bombs are illegal right? Has that ever stopped people from making bombs? No, they just make them out of crockpots. The ingredients for most homemade bombs are NOT illegal, you can buy pounds of chemicals in farming communities.

no shit of course the gun is more dangerous Wtf are you even talking about????
Humans have beem killing each other long before guns.

Californiagrownparanoid of guns in walmart.

im paranoid of what could/would happen if the american population was stripped of their guns in the same manner that pre nazi germany was stripped of theirs

DlCKno shit of course the gun is more dangerous Wtf are you even talking about????
Humans have beem killing each other long before guns.

Californiagrownparanoid of guns in walmart.

im paranoid of what could/would happen if the american population was stripped of their guns in the same manner that pre nazi germany was stripped of theirs

I am talking about your and other gun advocates' argument that a gun is simply an inanimate object that people shouldn't be worried about and it seemed like you were going down that road because you wanted to draw the parallel between gun violence and crockpot violence. YOU brought up the analogy.

Any country that has a full-on ban on guns is still functioning totally fine and has not plunged into a realm of chaos and death. Your fears are just that- your fears. You don't want to live in a world without guns, and that idea freaks you out.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/29644520/cincinnati-man-shoots-at-1-year-old-boy-is-shot-by-man-with-concealed-carry-permit

theBearJewhttp://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/29644520/cincinnati-man-shoots-at-1-year-old-boy-is-shot-by-man-with-concealed-carry-permit

wondering if same Patrick Ewing...

theBearJewhttp://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/29644520/cincinnati-man-shoots-at-1-year-old-boy-is-shot-by-man-with-concealed-carry-permit

I can't find any sources that aren't Fox.. but this sounds like a pretty usual event in the US. Low lives getting into an argument, one side pulls a gun and the other side pulls a gun and shots are fired.

This probably happens a couple times a day in the US.

Also did the guy who fired first have a concealed carry permit? You think they'd mention charges related to carrying a handgun without a license if he didn't. But Fox would never say if he did.




Also what I get out of this story is not that 'yay somebody who has a concealed carry stopped a guy from possibly killing someone', but that 'how is it so easy for someone who is clearly mentally ill to get his hands on handguns?' Did he have them legally? because if so there needs to be some serious changes to background checks so events like this don't happen.

onenerdykidI am talking about your and other gun advocates' argument that a gun is simply an inanimate object that people shouldn't be worried about and it seemed like you were going down that road because you wanted to draw the parallel between gun violence and crockpot violence. YOU brought up the analogy.

Any country that has a full-on ban on guns is still functioning totally fine and has not plunged into a realm of chaos and death. Your fears are just that- your fears. You don't want to live in a world without guns, and that idea freaks you out.

Those countries dont have military bases in every corner of the world.

Banning guns in the USA is a horrible horrible notion.

DlCKThose countries dont have military bases in every corner of the world.

Banning guns in the USA is a horrible horrible notion.

I wasn't suggesting banning guns from military bases... just what are you suggesting with that and where did it come from?

Pointing out murder rates in Ireland and Jamaica are not showing anything other than those countries simply not having their shit together. Not having guns in your country is not alone going to decrease murder and violence- other laws will need to be in place to do that, which Jamaica clearly has issues with.

I'm not proposing the notion, but I am disagreeing with your notion that it is a horrible, horrible notion. Those countries along with England and Japan do not have issues with kids, school children, movie-goers, and other public forums being shot up by crazies with access to dangerous weapons because it is simply not possible for it to happen.

But being a realist, I am aware of the fact that a full-on ban won't happen in the USA since there is simply too big of a business behind it as well as people's general want and desire for guns.

The next best thing to that is to require registration of all guns, and perform yearly mental health exams on gun owners, and ensure they possess proper knowledge of operation and safety of said gun. You want to own dangerous weapons, fine. But this is not the wild west where just about anyone without a prior record can own gun. You should need to keep demonstrating that you are able to do so and as long as you can, you get to keep it. The social contract rights of gun owners should not outweigh the social contract rights of non-gun owners.

S.J.WSeung-Hui Cho was a law abiding citizen. Virginia tech.
Dylan Roof was a law abiding citizen. Charleston.
Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen. Sandy Hook.
George Hennard was a law abiding citizen. Killeen, TX
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were both law abiding citizens. Collumbine.

See the patern?

this cracka dumb.

onenerdykidI wasn't suggesting banning guns from military bases... just what are you suggesting with that and where did it come from?

Pointing out murder rates in Ireland and Jamaica are not showing anything other than those countries simply not having their shit together. Not having guns in your country is not alone going to decrease murder and violence- other laws will need to be in place to do that, which Jamaica clearly has issues with.

I'm not proposing the notion, but I am disagreeing with your notion that it is a horrible, horrible notion. Those countries along with England and Japan do not have issues with kids, school children, movie-goers, and other public forums being shot up by crazies with access to dangerous weapons because it is simply not possible for it to happen.

But being a realist, I am aware of the fact that a full-on ban won't happen in the USA since there is simply too big of a business behind it as well as people's general want and desire for guns.

The next best thing to that is to require registration of all guns, and perform yearly mental health exams on gun owners, and ensure they possess proper knowledge of operation and safety of said gun. You want to own dangerous weapons, fine. But this is not the wild west where just about anyone without a prior record can own gun. You should need to keep demonstrating that you are able to do so and as long as you can, you get to keep it. The social contract rights of gun owners should not outweigh the social contract rights of non-gun owners.

Way to completely ignore the fact that the murder rates sky rocketed immediately after banning guns. I didnt just post a graph of murder rates. I posted a graph of murder rates before and after gun control. You said countries with gun control are just fine, tell that to jamaica and Ireland. Irelands murder rates would double if it inculded manslaughter.

So no, not all countries that have banned guns are better off. That is a huge generalization.

Hitler used gun registration to scoop up all the jews.

Cars kill more people annually than guns do and have done so for decades, but instead of banning cars we set safety standards and now those numbers are almost even with firearm deaths.
Im all for setting standards at a manufacturing level to ensure safety. Right now teddy bears are more regulated than guns at the manufacturing level.
Im all for making people jump through hoops to own a fully automatic rifle just to make sure they are fucking nutso, but banning guns altogether is, in the most politically incorrect way possible, fucking retarded, which is the consensus nation wide. No one agrees we should bam gun all together. Maybe some form of gun control will be accepted by the majority but it will be far far far from an overall ban


http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

Democrats, especially liberal democrats are severely out of touch with the rest of the nation.
My boy Sanders is an independent for the record.

"Sanders said Americans must find agreement on gun laws, such as improved background checks to prevent gun sales to people with criminal records or a history of mental instability ot domestic violience"

DlCKWay to completely ignore the fact that the murder rates sky rocketed immediately after banning guns. I didnt just post a graph of murder rates. I posted a graph of murder rates before and after gun control. You said countries with gun control are just fine, tell that to jamaica and Ireland. Irelands murder rates would double if it inculded manslaughter.

So no, not all countries that have banned guns are better off. That is a huge generalization.

Hitler used gun registration to scoop up all the jews.

First off, you are misquoting me- I never said they were better off, I said they were not plunged into a realm of chaos and death.

Plus I have also said and you quoted it that the removal of guns is not the only thing that would be required for a healthy, safe society.

You, however, seem to be claiming that the spike in murder rates was 100% caused by the removal of guns from those societies. That would be the most asinine position of all time, but go ahead and categorically claim that.

DlCKThose countries dont have military bases in every corner of the world.

Banning guns in the USA is a horrible horrible notion.

I'm not saying gun control works, but I'm just going to point out the huge and obvious flaws in this data:


1- Know your history. What also started in Ireland about the same time as the murder rates spiked? Some thing called 'The Troubles'. This lasted for about 30 years and resulted in the murder over 3,000 people in Ireland. A lot of these murders were done with bombs. These murders account for all of the increase in murder rate after gun control was put in place.

2- Again, know your history. Just before the dashed line on the graph (gun control? it doesn't say), Jamaica achieved independence from the UK and any economic benefits that came from being a territory ended. If you impose a trendline of Jamaica's economic prosperity over the graph of murders you'll find it mirrors it very well. This isn't a coincidence. Crime rises as the economy starts to suck.



Associating the increase in murder rates with the onset of gun control is completely ridiculous in these 2 cases and whatever site you got this from probably dug through every country with gun control and finally found 2 countries where gun control preceded an increase in murders and failed to realize they may have been other factors at play.

onenerdykidAny country that has a full-on ban on guns is still functioning totally fine

In the 3 years after Irelands gun ban, murder rates quadrupled. I understand correlation does not eqaul cassation but come on...this is obvious. Nut-jobs decided it was going to be a lot easier to murder people once guns were out of the picture. Ireland is not totally fine in many ways, one of them being murder rates.

"1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.
False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.

True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on."

DlCKIn the 3 years after Irelands gun ban, murder rates quadrupled.

dude. seriously. learn some history. The huge spike in murder rates has NOTHING to do with gun bans or anything at all. It has EVERYTHING to do with the IRA. Ever hear of Black Friday? That happened in 1972 (the hear of the huge spike) along with many other gun fights and bombings. Again. NOTHING TO DO WITH GUN LAWS.

DlCKIreland

Here. Start reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Don't mention Ireland again until you've read the entire article and have something intelligent to say about it.

VinnieFI'm not saying gun control works, but I'm just going to point out the huge and obvious flaws in this data:


1- Know your history. What also started in Ireland about the same time as the murder rates spiked? Some thing called 'The Troubles'. This lasted for about 30 years and resulted in the murder over 3,000 people in Ireland. A lot of these murders were done with bombs. These murders account for all of the increase in murder rate after gun control was put in place.

2- Again, know your history. Just before the dashed line on the graph (gun control? it doesn't say), Jamaica achieved independence from the UK and any economic benefits that came from being a territory ended. If you impose a trendline of Jamaica's economic prosperity over the graph of murders you'll find it mirrors it very well. This isn't a coincidence. Crime rises as the economy starts to suck.



Associating the increase in murder rates with the onset of gun control is completely ridiculous in these 2 cases and whatever site you got this from probably dug through every country with gun control and finally found 2 countries where gun control preceded an increase in murders and failed to realize they may have been other factors at play.

It does say the dotted line represents gun control.

I guess ill have to stick to our culture since we are Americans.

"According to data from the FBI's uniform crime reports, California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 — which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.
The irony of such a grisly distinction is evident when you look at which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You guessed it — it was California.

"What is very unusual is that California also has a program by which we can remove guns, recover guns from people who have a gun and then subsequently become prohibited or dangerous," Brady Campaign spokeswoman Amanda Wilcox said at the time.

It should be noted, though, that California is also one of the biggest states in the country, with a population of about about 37 million. Therefore, it might make sense that it would have a high number of murders but its murder rate is still high as gun control has had a seemingly inconsequential impact. In comparison, Texas has a population of about 25.6 million and saw 699 total gun murders in 2011 — nearly half that of California — and a firearms murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000.

In 2011, Utah, the state that the Brady Campaign determined had the least gun control, experienced just 26 gun murders and a firearms murder rate of 0.97. Utah has a population 2.8 million."


Australia is the only significant example of gun control being successfulz The uk murder rated dropped due to a larger police force, not gun control.


murder rate is a culural problem not a gun problem. You cant argue this.

VinnieFHere. Start reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Don't mention Ireland again until you've read the entire article and have something intelligent to say about it.

I dont need to mention Ireland again.

VinnieFHere. Start reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Don't mention Ireland again until you've read the entire article and have something intelligent to say about it.

DlCKIt does say the dotted line represents gun control.


murder rate is a culural problem not a gun problem. You cant argue this.

Quite the coincidence that "the troubles" happened immediately after a ban on guns. I think ive proven my point. Thanks for the help.

DlCKIn the 3 years after Irelands gun ban, murder rates quadrupled. I understand correlation does not eqaul cassation but come on...this is obvious. Nut-jobs decided it was going to be a lot easier to murder people once guns were out of the picture. Ireland is not totally fine in many ways, one of them being murder rates.

"1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.
False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.

True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on."

1. Well, that's 642 more child deaths than I'm comfortable with simply because you think there is a greater good you are somehow serving. But whatever, that's on your conscious not mine.

2. What fucking moronic criminal would ever go to a gun show to buy a gun? That's right only 2%. What about all of the other forms of private sales, where they actually did get their guns through? Side question- are you opposed to the registration of all guns?

3. It does show the deficiencies of gun laws, since you are only talking about laws that prevent or slow the sale of the gun. Nowhere do you show or talk about laws the regulate the ownership of the gun after the sale, and this is what is lacking in our country.

4. Totally fine with that, as I have said I am not a proponent of banning all guns.

5. Don't care about waiting periods, I care more about post-sale regulation.

6. But again many of these countries have far more regulation post-sale and require yearly examinations done to ensure you are still fit to own your gun. When you're not fit, you're no longer able to own the gun.

DlCKmurder rate is a culural problem not a gun problem.

This is 100% correct.

The US is a complete failure when it comes to being a cultural melting pot and solutions are not easy.

Are more guns the solution? Clearly not, or the murder rate in the US wouldn't be so damn high in the first place. Plus just look at the US before the 2000's when gun laws started to become stricter. Has lessened gun control ever lessened murder rates?

Are stricter gun laws the solution? Not clearly. But they have been shown to help. Maybe it won't ever help in the States. Maybe it will.

Here's some food for thought, mark on this graph where stricter gun controls have come into effect:

murder rates in the US.

Maybe the discussion shouldn't at all be about guns, but about other possibilities to solve a social failure of a country.

DlCKQuite the coincidence that "the troubles" happened immediately after a ban on guns. I think ive proven my point. Thanks for the help.

Oh. my . lord. could you be more thick. You're not worth wear on my keyboard. I now regret wasting any time I have spent on debating you.

DlCKI dont need to mention Ireland again.

DlCKQuite the coincidence that "the troubles" happened immediately after a ban on guns. I think ive proven my point. Thanks for the help.

VinnieFOh. my . lord. could you be more thick. You're not worth wear on my keyboard. I now regret wasting any time I have spent on debating you.

Then whys you bring up Ireland in the first place? Because it was the only example you could find. And the troubles were caused by gun control? Lolol read a textbook or retake European history you dumbass. I mean really how many fallacies could you use in your arguments?

DlCKIt does say the dotted line represents gun control.

I guess ill have to stick to our culture since we are Americans.

"According to data from the FBI's uniform crime reports, California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 — which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.
The irony of such a grisly distinction is evident when you look at which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You guessed it — it was California.

"What is very unusual is that California also has a program by which we can remove guns, recover guns from people who have a gun and then subsequently become prohibited or dangerous," Brady Campaign spokeswoman Amanda Wilcox said at the time.

It should be noted, though, that California is also one of the biggest states in the country, with a population of about about 37 million. Therefore, it might make sense that it would have a high number of murders but its murder rate is still high as gun control has had a seemingly inconsequential impact. In comparison, Texas has a population of about 25.6 million and saw 699 total gun murders in 2011 — nearly half that of California — and a firearms murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000.

In 2011, Utah, the state that the Brady Campaign determined had the least gun control, experienced just 26 gun murders and a firearms murder rate of 0.97. Utah has a population 2.8 million."


Australia is the only significant example of gun control being successfulz The uk murder rated dropped due to a larger police force, not gun control.


murder rate is a culural problem not a gun problem. You cant argue this.

VinnieFOh. my . lord. could you be more thick. You're not worth wear on my keyboard. I now regret wasting any time I have spent on debating you.

You idiots are making the assumption that I have no knowledge of the Northern Ireland Conflict. I merely said it was a coincidence, not the cause. I can use the UK for an example if youd like. Same situation. In the decades after gun control there was no impact on overall homocide rates. Same situation in California.

Btw. the murder rate in the United States is below average globally. My only points are that a total ban on guns will never ever happen in the United States, that the effectiveness of gun control is completely inconclusive for either side and that culture is the problem not guns.

If we lived in a world where guns were never invented I would be perfectly happy and ok with that, but we dont.

DlCKculture is the problem not guns.

If we lived in a world where guns were never invented I would be perfectly happy and ok with that, but we dont.

Now this is something we can both assuredly agree on.