Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[coachdb18]

The gun boys don't react well to women who challenge their fragile beliefs.

Your ride is here!!!
https://i.imgur.com/XoDTdPi.jpg

 

[Blue]

Yes of course. You all sit here and demand stats then blow them off as faked. And the liberals like to do things like posting stats for homicide rates that include suicide and cops shooting criminals.

As I said before, Fuck the stats and answer the original question.

Ok.
Norway and the Scandinavian countries are at the top of that chart because they have a much, much smaller homicide rate than the US. Why:

The US has an intentional homicide rate many multiple times larger than each of the Scandinavian countries, I bolded that because it's important later, and mass shootings make up a very small percentage of those deaths in the US.

So in the Scandinavian countries, even when they have many less deaths due to mass shootings in total than the US has, because of the very low amount of intentional homicides relative to the US that causes the percentage of deaths caused by mass shootings to be higher in the Scandinavian countries. It is lower in the US because even though you have many more mass shootings and many more deaths due to them, your intentional homicide rate overall is also so much more higher than any Scandinavian country, because crime is far more deadly, that non-mass shooting deaths dwarf the amount of mass shooting deaths, causing the deaths by mass shooting rate to be lower.

The important facts to take away are that crime in the US is astronomically more deadly and intentional homicide is also massively disproportionately higher than in e.g. Norway. I keep saying intentional homicide as opposed to "deaths" or "murder" because you said that I use statistics including police shootings and suicides, which I'm not.

If you want to be able to clearly see an accurate comparison of how safe (example) Norway is compared to the US you have to look at something more comprehensive than just the mass shooting rate. And when we do look at that, we find that Norway is approx' 11.48% as dangerous to live in as the US is in the same time frame, according to that Wiki page. When looking at intentional homicides.

The US is almost 9x more dangerous to live in than Norway.

 

[KimGordon67]

Let me refresh your memory:



There ARE guns near you, mostly in the hands of criminals. You live in an unsafe environment with no way to defend yourself. But that is of course, your right to do so. It's also my natural right to choose to arm and defend myself.




I don't have an issue with income tax as such, but I do have an issue with WITHHOLDING income taxes from your paycheck.

I think we'd have a much more fiscally responsible government and less dishonest politicians if we made two changes:

Require tax payment in a lump sum by April 15th (no withholding).

Move election day to May 1st.

That way the pain of paying out a gigantic percentage of your income is fresh on your mind when you vote for the next set of law makers.

Not too many pols that voted in huge tax increases would be reelected...

No, there are NOT a huge number of guns near me. (Maybe one or two, but even then I'd be surprised.) What possible evidence do you have to support your claim.

 

[KimGordon67]

Scandinavia, eh?

Is that why Finland is higher than the US on the list of Annual Death rate from Mass shootings? Oh, Look! Norway is the top.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2016-04-05-at-Tuesday-April-5-1.05-AM.png

From this report.

Because of the isolated incident in 2011 - even I know that, and I'm terrible at keeping up with the news (source). I can't even find another reference to a mass shooting in Norway since WWII. Yes, stats are good, but you also need to look at them with an analytical eye. In this instance, Norway is pulled up the table by a lone, and extremely effective, abberation in a country with quite a low population (approximately 5m) - if you have a small population and an isolated incident with a high death toll, that pulls the per capita rate up substantively. The same incident in the US would have had a much lower effect on the per capita rates.
In the overall homicide rates, Tuvalu rates exceptionally high on a per capita basis. I absolutely guarantee this is also because of one or two very isolated aberrations. You need to dig into the stats, rather than just cite them uncritically.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes of course. You all sit here and demand stats then blow them off as faked. And the liberals like to do things like posting stats for homicide rates that include suicide and cops shooting criminals.

As I said before, Fuck the stats and answer the original question.

Neither Blue nor I called those stats faked - as my above post demonstrates, they're just not the entire story.
If anyone has posted stats for homicides that include suicides, please let me know - I'd be really interested to see who the hell would include suicides in homicide stats.

 

[todski28]

Because of the isolated incident in 2011 - even I know that, and I'm terrible at keeping up with the news (source). I can't even find another reference to a mass shooting in Norway since WWII. Yes, stats are good, but you also need to look at them with an analytical eye. In this instance, Norway is pulled up the table by a lone, and extremely effective, abberation in a country with quite a low population (approximately 5m) - if you have a small population and an isolated incident with a high death toll, that pulls the per capita rate up substantively.
In the overall homicide rates, Tuvalu rates exceptionally high on a per capita basis. I absolutely guarantee this is also because of one or two very isolated aberrations. You need to dig into the stats, rather than just cite them uncritically.

I can find statistics and research and solid arguements for both sides of this debate and there in lies a fundamental problem, the data we search for and lean into qhen we find it is the one that supports our main point of view.

Both sides present clear and logical for and againsts arguements. Just watched a ben Shapiro clip
followed by a convincing anti guns clip

Both sides cherry picking and using data that suits thema nd leaving relevant shit out. I wish I hbad more time and a better handle on stats gor a closer look at both sets.


Grom the data thought the correlations tend to be homicide rates are higher in areas with the largest inequality and th e largest proportion of single mothers.

That bit is crystal clear.

 

[My I]

Ok.
Norway and the Scandinavian countries are at the top of that chart because they have a much, much smaller homicide rate than the US. Why:

The US has an intentional homicide rate many multiple times larger than each of the Scandinavian countries, I bolded that because it's important later, and mass shootings make up a very small percentage of those deaths in the US.

So in the Scandinavian countries, even when they have many less deaths due to mass shootings in total than the US has, because of the very low amount of intentional homicides relative to the US that causes the percentage of deaths caused by mass shootings to be higher in the Scandinavian countries. It is lower in the US because even though you have many more mass shootings and many more deaths due to them, your intentional homicide rate overall is also so much more higher than any Scandinavian country, because crime is far more deadly, that non-mass shooting deaths dwarf the amount of mass shooting deaths, causing the deaths by mass shooting rate to be lower.

The important facts to take away are that crime in the US is astronomically more deadly and intentional homicide is also massively disproportionately higher than in e.g. Norway. I keep saying intentional homicide as opposed to "deaths" or "murder" because you said that I use statistics including police shootings and suicides, which I'm not.

If you want to be able to clearly see an accurate comparison of how safe (example) Norway is compared to the US you have to look at something more comprehensive than just the mass shooting rate. And when we do look at that, we find that Norway is approx' 11.48% as dangerous to live in as the US is in the same time frame, according to that Wiki page. When looking at intentional homicides.

The US is almost 9x more dangerous to live in than Norway.

That chart is PER 1million. That equalizes it for population.

Show me your stats to prove it wrong. We'll do THIS circle again so you can bury the question under a couple more pages and not answer it.

 

[KimGordon67]

That chart is PER 1million. That equalizes it for population.

Show me your stats to prove it wrong. We'll do THIS circle again so you can bury the question under a couple more pages and not answer it.

Here's a Snopes report on those stats. If you read the section headed 'other countries', the report makes some of the points I've already made, and some additional ones - e.g. the chart only includes countries that had a mass shooting. But read the report, because there's some other really important points in there too.

I'd also be interested to know why those dates were chosen - they seem odd to say the least. A more cynical person might think it was to ensure to capture particularly efficacious mass-shootings in some European sites. But surely not ... we could, of course, test this by just choosing some utterly random years and checking for the figures for those years.

 

[KimGordon67]

That chart is PER 1million. That equalizes it for population.

Show me your stats to prove it wrong. We'll do THIS circle again so you can bury the question under a couple more pages and not answer it.

Blue always uses proportional figures - I don't know why you're suggesting that he doesn't.

His point is you're using a chart that is about mass shootings, rather than intentional homicides rates (and, for the reasons I've given above, it doesn't even really say what you want it to say about mass shootings).

 

[KimGordon67]

I can find statistics and research and solid arguements for both sides of this debate and there in lies a fundamental problem, the data we search for and lean into qhen we find it is the one that supports our main point of view.

Both sides present clear and logical for and againsts arguements. Just watched a ben Shapiro clip
followed by a convincing anti guns clip

Both sides cherry picking and using data that suits thema nd leaving relevant shit out. I wish I hbad more time and a better handle on stats gor a closer look at both sets.


Grom the data thought the correlations tend to be homicide rates are higher in areas with the largest inequality and th e largest proportion of single mothers.

That bit is crystal clear.

I would utterly agree with the point about inequality (although I'm not going to get drawn into the 'blame the single mothers' argument, because that's just specious). So the solution is a better distribution of resources across society? Hmmmm ....

 

[todski28]

I would utterly agree with the point about inequality (although I'm not going to get drawn into the 'blame the single mothers' argument, because that's just specious). So the solution is a better distribution of resources across society? Hmmmm ....

Hahahah i will not run down the socialism path because the evvidence on that one is in, and the single mother rate is subsidised by socialist policies, i.e. subsidising stupid decisions about who we have children with. It is not a blame the single mothers arguement it is a correlative that has a lot of causative factors.

Im one of 4 boys from a single mother house hold and trust me women cant raise men for shit

But moving away from that in demographics where inequality is the lowest almost all violence is lessened

 

[gunthernehmen]

No, there are NOT a huge number of guns near me. (Maybe one or two, but even then I'd be surprised.) What possible evidence do you have to support your claim.

According to BBC, there are around 2 million lawfully owned firearms in civilian hands, in the UK. So there's that. And it does not account for illegally passed firearms, nor police or military.

 

[KimGordon67]

Hahahah i will not run down the socialism path because the evvidence on that one is in, and the single mother rate is subsidised by socialist policies, i.e. subsidising stupid decisions about who we have children with. It is not a blame the single mothers arguement it is a correlative that has a lot of causative factors.

Im one of 4 boys from a single mother house hold and trust me women cant raise men for shit

But moving away from that in demographics where inequality is the lowest almost all violence is lessened

Your mother couldn't raise men for shit - don't generalise from a sample of one.

 

[KimGordon67]

According to BBC, there are around 2 million lawfully owned firearms in civilian hands, in the UK. So there's that. And it does not account for illegally passed firearms, nor police or military.

I repeat - there are NOT huge number of guns near me. Your evidence isn't relevant to my situation. You maybe should do some fact-checking before you try to make arguments about things.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I repeat - there are NOT huge number of guns near me. Your evidence isn't relevant to my situation. You maybe should do some fact-checking before you try to make arguments about things.

I gathered from your comments that you're in the UK. If that's incorrect, cool. If it is correct, there are more guns around you than you realize.

 

[todski28]

Your mother couldn't raise men for shit - don't generalise from a sample of one.

Hahahahah if you say so

But who teaches men predominantly that no doesnt mean no?

Id say that one belongs to mothers and their empathy

 

[coachdb18]

I gathered from your comments that you're in the UK. If that's incorrect, cool. If it is correct, there are more guns around you than you realize.

The problems in the UK are just beginning. The Muslim immigration of the young and ultra-violent they’re now receiving, and the boldness they’re exhibiting is only going to become worse. Targeting white British civilians with guns is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[KimGordon67]

I gathered from your comments that you're in the UK. If that's incorrect, cool. If it is correct, there are more guns around you than you realize.

I'm pretty familiar with the context in which I live, and am pretty confident about the level of gun ownership here - our proportional rate of gun ownership less than a third of yours. We have a gun homicide rate of about 0.1 per 100,000 per annum here, compared to your 4.62 - so around 2% of your rate.

 

[KimGordon67]

Hahahahah if you say so

But who teaches men predominantly that no doesnt mean no?

Id say that one belongs to mothers and their empathy

Whatever. I'm literally not engaging in an argument based on that premise.

 

[KimGordon67]

The problems in the UK are just beginning. The Muslim immigration of the young and ultra-violent they’re now receiving, and the boldness they’re exhibiting is only going to become worse. Targeting white British civilians with guns is only the tip of the iceberg.

Oh. My. God.

 

[todski28]

The problems in the UK are just beginning. The Muslim immigration of the young and ultra-violent they’re now receiving, and the boldness they’re exhibiting is only going to become worse. Targeting white British civilians with guns is only the tip of the iceberg.

This I agree with 100%

 

[todski28]

Whatever. I'm literally not engaging in an argument based on that premise.

Fair enough, Im not normally one to start mudfights and as you have pointed out my anecdotal story and perception are not data. Plus this is a different thread/arguement

Brazil is now currently trying to repeal their gun control laws, because their murder rate is ridiculous even when compared to the USA so does it have to get to brazilian levels of violence befoee any sort of gun ownership is acceptable?
I may have to run back through the thread and read a little more on your stance

 

[KimGordon67]

Fair enough, Im not normally one to start mudfights and as you have pointed out my anecdotal story and perception are not data. Plus this is a different thread/arguement

Brazil is now currently trying to repeal their gun control laws, because their murder rate is ridiculous even when compared to the USA so does it have to get to brazilian levels of violence befoee any sort of gun ownership is acceptable?
I may have to run back through the thread and read a little more on your stance

Pretty much 'no guns unless you're using them to shoot animals that I like eating (or are bona fide pests), or they're basically peashooters (e.g. slug guns) and you're just mucking around with them shooting tins and shit'. It's fairly straightforward.

Unless you're Judge Dredd or Tank Girl. Then anything goes, up to and including missile launchers.

 

[todski28]

Pretty much 'no guns unless you're using them to shoot animals that I like eating (or are bona fide pests), or they're basically peashooters (e.g. slug guns) and you're just mucking around with them shooting tins and shit'. It's fairly straightforward.

Unless you're Judge Dredd or Tank Girl. Then anything goes, up to and including missile launchers.

So there is no room in that arguementation for self defense as a reason to own a gun, despite any scenario that could be posed?

I assume youre not including police and military, merely everday citizens?

 

[KimGordon67]

So there is no room in that arguementation for self defense as a reason to own a gun, despite any scenario that could be posed?

I assume youre not including police and military, merely everday citizens?

Police = virtually no guns (as is the case at the moment).
Military ... whatever.

If no one has guns you don't need guns for self defense. If you introduce them for 'self defense', then effectively anyone can have one, and that's hardly 'no guns'.
I've heard all the arguments for guns as self defence, and the only context in which that makes sense is if everyone/lots of people have guns. Otherwise, it's redundant (e.g. where I live).