Texting, then assulting ex cop, during movie equals death.

[Famine]

@Famine ,to avoid quoting you again and taking up another half page of flaming

Ah yes, to avoid having to address the fact that your original post was complete garbage again.

let's just keep it short.
I went on the net, looked for an article and found this:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...e-rate-higher-than-other-developed-countries/

Congratulations. Now what does "homicide" mean in that chart and why are non gun-related homicides missed off it?

So; you still call my viewpoint "utter rubbish"? And yes this is strictly gun related violence, not violence in general. Easy access to guns means more murders, simple as that.

Which isn't what your chart shows. I know you want to believe it does, but what it actually shows is that more [weapon] = more homicides involving [weapon], not more homicides.

Oh and Russia's data is 12.4. And guns are strictly controlled there. Which kinda farts all over "more guns = more gun murders" too. Enjoy!

 

[David]

Love how the title only says homicides in G-8 countries but then in smaller writing on the y-axis it's only gun related. Not at all misleading. Misses the point again.

 

[mister dog]

Ah yes, to avoid having to address the fact that your original post was complete garbage again.

You are on your high horse anyway, it's useless trying to get you off so I didn't wanna bother anymore. My original post might sound like garbage to you, but rest assured you'll find enough people that would agree with me.
Also seeing that you are always eager to hand out warnings to others when the going get's tough, i would suggest you try and respect the AUP as much as you expect it from other members on GTP, and refrain from namecalling other people's posts "utter rubbish" and "complete garbage", just because you do not agree with them...

Congratulations. Now what does "homicide" mean in that chart and why are non gun-related homicides missed off it?Which isn't what your chart shows. I know you want to believe it does, but what it actually shows is that more [weapon] = more homicides involving [weapon], not more homicides.

Going back to my original point; If gun laws 'in Florida' would make it as hard to acquire guns as in European countries, there's a big chance the popcorn dude would still be alive and would have ended up with a black eye...
You started the whole comparative murder rate thing to try and deny this.

 

[Famine]

You are on your high horse anyway, it's useless trying to get you off so I didn't wanna bother anymore. My original post might sound like garbage to you, but rest assured you'll find enough people that would agree with me.

I'm sure you would. That doesn't alter the fact it's objectively wrong and complete rubbish. People believe in all sorts of spurious, imaginary and made-up cobblers all the time.

Also seeing that you are always eager to hand out warnings to others when the going get's tough, i would suggest you try and respect the AUP as much as you expect it from other members on GTP, and refrain from namecalling other people's posts "utter rubbish" and "complete garbage", just because you do not agree with them...

I'll just check my pocket AUP here and see if there's any provision in it for not saying something that is rubbish is rubbish...

Nope.

You don't get a free pass to post absolute garbage because it upsets you when it's pointed out that it's garbage. Still, I've not seen anyone try to pull the defensive AUP card instead of admitting their opinion isn't borne out by facts in quite some time, so thanks for the flashback.

Going back to my original point; If gun laws 'in Florida'

Go on, you can do it. "I admit I was wrong when I said it was due to US gun laws".

would make it as hard to acquire guns as in European countries, there's a big chance the popcorn dude would still be alive and would have ended up with a black eye...

And every single statistic says there's an equal chance he'd be dead, just not by being shot - just stabbed or beaten which is, obviously, much, much better.

Oh, except the statistic you posted from the G8 countries, which says that he's three times as likely to have been shot dead in gun-shy Russia - but you just don't want to admit it.

 

[mister dog]

I'll just check my pocket AUP here and see if there's any provision in it for not saying something that is rubbish is rubbish...

You conveniently overlooked the part that says "You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner" in your little pocket AUP there. Doesn't surprise me.

Calling other people's views "utter rubbish" or "complete garbage" because you do not agree with them qualifies for that.

 

[Famine]

No... no it doesn't. Nor does saying ill-considered opinions which are objectively wrong are rubbish.

You now have the facts You surely can't still be insisting your original post is true... can you?

 

[Blitz24]

I thought the AUP also says that information that is false should not be posted as well?

 

[mister dog]

No... no it doesn't. Nor does saying ill-considered opinions which are objectively wrong are rubbish.

You now have the facts You surely can't still be insisting your original post is true... can you?

Here it is again, in it's misleading, ill considered and false form:

General european viewpoint would be; that's what you get with US gun laws...

Anyone can carry one around and fire it at the slightest escalation. If this same situation would have happened in Europe, it would have ended with a fistfight, not someone dead in a hospital over a stupid thing like this.

How on earth one would get it in his mind to even dare to post this eludes me! Heathen and violator I say

 

[Liquid]

For what it's worth, senjor perro, I don't think prefacing your statement with general European viewpoint is factual.

Without backing that up, you have to admit it is a sweeping opinion and not fact.

 

[mister dog]

For what it's worth, senjor perro, I don't think prefacing your statement with general European viewpoint is factual.

Without backing that up, you have to admit it is a sweeping opinion and not fact.

I do admit that; it is my sweeping opinion and like I said; what i assume the general public in Europe would think when reading stories like these coming from the states, related to gun violence.

Seeing that i gave my opinion and never stated it as "fact", it isn't a reason to categorize it as "complete garbage" would you agree?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This is just a case of stubbornness on the current events sub-forum that is met or stopped by Famine, which then results in the subject not wanting to admit famine is right but will do so to another user. Thus not directly giving Famine gratification, though it was obvious without saying so, many have been their @mister dog it's okay.

 

[Famine]

Guess you missed this then:

General european viewpoint would be; that's what you get with US gun laws...

Which were nothing to do with it.

Anyone can carry one around

Which is untrue.

If this same situation would have happened in Europe, it would have ended with a fistfight, not someone dead in a hospital over a stupid thing like this.

Which is a fabrication.

I wouldn't mind, but you've subsequently changed your posts to read "Florida law" instead of "US gun laws" - so you know that one is wrong - and you've acknowledged, by way of dismissing it, that people kill each other for nothing in Europe too. You've not responded to the point that Florida requires licensing for concealed carry and bans open carry and that many felons, minors and people with certain medical conditions are not eligible for licences.

Every part of that post has been factually debunked, so you can't possibly be still pretending that post is anything other than imaginary codswallop.

 

[mister dog]

This is just a case of stubbornness on the current events sub-forum that is met or stopped by Famine, which then results in the subject not wanting to admit famine is right but will do so to another user. Thus not directly giving Famine gratification, though it was obvious without saying so, many have been their @mister dog it's okay.

I know i'm up against everyone here, seeing that @Famine can never be wrong under any circumstances , but i'd suggest you read through the whole 2 pages so you understand where i am coming from, either you didn't do that so far, or you are also misinterpreting me.

@Liquid I agree with as he understands I gave an opinion, @Famine is wrong because he accuses me of me stating my opinion in my original post as fact + proceeds to ridicule it.

I will now stop posting in this thread, as it has been derailed enough already, let's leave it at that.

 

[Famine]

I didn't say you stated opinion as fact. I said the facts you stated were wrong. You posted three factual errors to form the basis of an opinion. All three errors have been corrected.

The phrase is "Thank you, I didn't know that. Now I know more I can form a better opinion."

 

[mister dog]

I didn't say you stated opinion as fact. I said the facts you stated were wrong.

In this sentence you contradict yourself, nobody but you is mentioning 'facts'; you see; an opinion does not equal a fact, it is just an opinion.

Now i'm out of this thread, have a good one boys 👍

 

[Famine]

In this sentence you contradict yourself, nobody but you is mentioning 'facts';

Except the fact it was due to "USA gun laws" (factual error), the fact that "anyone" can carry a gun in the USA (factual error) and the fact that people in Europe don't kill each other over nothing (factual error). All three are objectively wrong and I've told you why.

Still can't quite bring yourself to accept this, huh? No doubt you'll state it again, next time there's a shooting in the USA - but not when there's a shooting in Russia or a stabbing in London.

Now i'm out of this thread

Saves having to modify your opinion to accept the new facts, I guess.

 

[Third Reign]

Protip: You can win every exchange just by being one level more precise than whoever talked last. Eventually, you'll defeat all conversational opponents and stand alone.

Hell just look at the amendments, "right to bear arms" is already more liberal gun policy than any other European country. If I'm as nit-picky as you I could prove everyone wrong as well..."US gunlaws" is a simplification used to demonstrate a general point without going into an essay writing contest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
There is a correlation between obtainable firearms and gun-based incidents. Read simplified "US gun laws"

Laws like "stand your ground" don't necessarily help reduce gun related incidents either. In Germany we have laws against excessive use of force in defense situations, I assume most other European countries do as well. "Stand your ground" is the polar opposite in that regard.

Just because "utter rubbish" is a common british phrase does not hinder a non-native english speaker to take offense on its literal meaning, "trash". There are many ways to point out factual errors, no need to pull out a blitteling tone.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I know i'm up against everyone here, seeing that @Famine can never be wrong under any circumstances , but i'd suggest you read through the whole 2 pages so you understand where i am coming from, either you didn't do that so far, or you are also misinterpreting me.

@Liquid I agree with as he understands I gave an opinion, @Famine is wrong because he accuses me of me stating my opinion in my original post as fact + proceeds to ridicule it.

I will now stop posting in this thread, as it has been derailed enough already, let's leave it at that.

I did read the entire thread, it's usually what I do before I start making such blunt comments at anyone even Famine. Problem here is I agree with Famine not because he can't be wrong, but because he is correct in his assessment of the "proof" you posted, especially when it comes to the gun violence sweeping declaration you made as if a la Piers Morgan.

If you knew my track record on this sub forum you'd see that I'm a massive defender of gun rights and challenge anyone that comes up with these knee jerk reactions or skewed information.

You've got no clue on the gun rights of the US and if you think Famine is bad then you're really dodged the bullet (the pun is sending me to be burned by Prometheus) against gun fanatics.

Using moderation power as a threat in a simple difference of opinion is a low blow, seriously.



Hell just look at the amendments, "right to bear arms" is already more liberal gun policy than any other European country. If I'm as nit-picky as you I could prove everyone wrong as well..."US gunlaws" is a simplification used to demonstrate a general point without going into an essay writing contest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
There is a correlation between obtainable firearms and gun-based incidents. Read simplified "US gun laws"

Laws like "stand your ground" don't necessarily help reduce gun related incidents either. In Germany we have laws against excessive use of force in defense situations, I assume most other European countries do as well. "Stand your ground" is the polar opposite in that regard.

Just because "utter rubbish" is a common british phrase does not hinder a non-native english speaker to take offense on its literal meaning, "trash". There are many ways to point out factual errors, no need to pull out a blitteling tone.

And many states in the U.S. have laws against defensive situations, and short of being shot, stabbed or attacked by the perpetrator can you actually defend, other regions it's different. To make a sweeping generalization just as the last user isn't going to be met well.

And on such a topic such general terms as "US guns laws" shouldn't be used since it various so vastly, it isn't US or Federal in mandate but more local. If one isn't going to take the simple measure to read up on what is proper understanding of guns and civics involving them then don't toss your hat into the ring and expect people to clamor to you as if you make coherent sense. Rather, one should expect to be corrected quite strongly for such a gross miscarry and others really shouldn't jump in and make the same mistake of the user they plan to defend.

Either you want to do the research or you don't. Also, it's been demonstrated why just a gun alone statistic is skewed in concept, so why have you brought it up again?

 

[Danoff]

There is a correlation between obtainable firearms and gun-based incidents. Read simplified "US gun laws"

A) Russia
B) Why would that be meaningful?

 

[Third Reign]

The funny thing on gun discussion is that everyone's point of view on the matter can be blown to smithereens on the simple fact that the entire subject is too complex to solve simply and no sentence would be specific enough to cover this complexity. As such no post I fabricate on a racing game forum would suffice to convince my opinion to be of significance. I anyone does, he would solve the whole crime problem of the world and receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

My opinion is quite simple. I don't like guns, they serve no meaningful purpose except to kill things, hunting does not count since hunting was done way before guns. Even if you're hunting, there is no need for a 8-30 bullet capacity, hunting can be done with a single shot. Having to reload after each shot would also reduce the likelihood of multiple victims.
Violent crimes happen everywhere on near identical rate. On regions where guns are more prevalent, gun related violence is more prevalent. Take away the guns and the next best weapon would be used to assist the crime. The thing is that shooting someone is less personal than running up to someone and slicing them up. In mindset alone a shot is fired much more likely than a stabbing.

 

[Famine]

Hell just look at the amendments, "right to bear arms" is already more liberal gun policy than any other European country. If I'm as nit-picky as you I could prove everyone wrong as well..."US gunlaws" is a simplification used to demonstrate a general point without going into an essay writing contest.

It's also wrong. US gun laws didn't put a firearm in the hands of Mr. Reeves any more than the United Nations did.

The Second Amendment doesn't give guns to anyone. It says that the federal government cannot stop the States from making their own laws regarding the control of firearms. US gun laws have no bearing on this case - only Florida's do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
There is a correlation between obtainable firearms and gun-based incidents.

Not from those two pieces there aren't.

For a start, you're excluding all firearm-related violence other than death. And you're including all firearm suicides. And all legal firearm deaths, including lawful killings. And then there's Russia...

Read simplified "US gun laws"

Just out of curiousity, would you blame "US gun laws" for a shooting in Washington DC like this one? Only Washington DC is a No Issue "state" and their firearms laws make the United Kingdom's look like a free-for-all joke.

Curse you, Second Amendment and your liberal nature!

Laws like "stand your ground" don't necessarily help reduce gun related incidents either. In Germany we have laws against excessive use of force in defense situations, I assume most other European countries do as well. "Stand your ground" is the polar opposite in that regard.

Not really - we have the right to use deadly force in Europe too. If deadly force is warranted - such as being in fear for your life.

It's actually not all that different from Stand Your Ground, in fact, except that it's not a last resort in SYG.

Just because "utter rubbish" is a common british phrase does not hinder a non-native english speaker to take offense on its literal meaning, "trash".

Trash would be equally valid. As would nonsense, hogwash, tripe, codswallop and bunk.

Offence may be taken at that, if desired, but it's no-one's problem but the person taking offence. Of course, had I added "and you're an idiot", that would be behaving offensively, which becomes my problem.

There are many ways to point out factual errors, no need to pull out a blitteling tone.

Tone is read, not written (though it is possible to imply one overtly). Again, a problem for the reader.

I'm not especially bothered if someone wants to get offended because they've posted absolute garbage to support an opinion and have that garbage challenged with fact. The fact they're willing to post such ridiculous nonsense and then refuse to recant it in the face of evidence is exactly why we have idiotic laws that strip citizens of freedoms.

Violent crimes happen everywhere on near identical rate.

In Western countries, I'd agree almost completely with that sentiment.

In less developed and developing countries, it's often quite a bit higher.

 

[Slash]

I find it sad that a man who doesn't even live in the States knows the Constitution better than those who do.

 

[Danoff]

@Third Reign

Guns are tools, they can be used for good, and they can be used for evil - just like any other tool. There's no reason to like or dislike them. What you said is like saying "I don't like forks".

 

[Beeblebrox237]

The Second Amendment doesn't give guns to anyone. It says that the federal government cannot stop the States from making their own laws regarding the control of firearms. US gun laws have no bearing on this case - only Florida's do.Not from those two pieces there aren't.

👍 The second amendment doesn't even mention firearms specifically. It states that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Third Reign]

@Famine,
I never stated that a "law placed a gun in this mans hand". "US gun laws" is a term that can also address the lack of a certain law. There is no law that prevented the man from carrying a gun. Where he a law abiding man that was not allowed to carry, he would not have shot him. Quite a simple concept if you ask me. Here in Germany I'm not even allowed to carry around a han-bo (60-90cm stick) without a lockable transporting bag, it is classified as a weapon. I know since I practice martial arts, all parts of German self defense and weapon laws are drilled into me as they will be used against me the moment I harm someone in defense.

For a start, you're excluding all firearm-related violence other than death. And you're including all firearm suicides. And all legal firearm deaths, including lawful killings. And then there's Russia...
Just out of curiousity, would you blame "US gun laws" for a shooting in Washington DC like this one? Only Washington DC is a No Issue "state" and their firearms laws make the United Kingdom's look like a free-for-all joke.

For every crime that you name that could not be prevented by law, there is one I can find that could have. There is no black or white here...Laws are only useful if you abide them. It's not the law that stops crimes, it should be the consequence of braking the law that prevents the crime/deed. My opinion is that some consequences of "US gun law" are too lenient. Everyone could run around with a gun, but if their use had strong consequences, many would refrain from using them.
As for the gun death statistic, I did not investigate how much each of you listed subgroups of casualties factor in, but less guns would surely lead to less gun usage. Even scattered data plots can reveal trends...

Curse you, Second Amendment and your liberal nature!Not really - we have the right to use deadly force in Europe too. If deadly force is warranted - such as being in fear for your life.

It's actually not all that different from Stand Your Ground, in fact, except that it's not a last resort in SYG.

That's why I said "excessive use of force". Gun in a fistfight is something I classify as excessive personally. Germany has "Putative defense laws" as well, but are also subject to excess.

@Third Reign

Guns are tools, they can be used for good, and they can be used for evil - just like any other tool. There's no reason to like or dislike them. What you said is like saying "I don't like forks".

Wait what? How is a fork even closely related to a gun? You eat with a gun? If its the killing aspect, I could kill someone with a single finger if I wanted. I can use my entire body as a weapon. I must really hate my body...
Tell me one purpose of a gun that does not include blasting a bullet through someone? Protection? The gun only protects through discouraging the attacker. The threatening with death is not really a "good deed", no matter the intention.

 

[Northstar]

Where he a law abiding man that was not allowed to carry, he would not have shot him. Quite a simple concept if you ask me.

And up until this indecent, all indications say he was. As nice as it would be, only in the movies can you predict crimes before they happen.

 

[Famine]

@Famine,
I never stated that a "law placed a gun in this mans hand". "US gun laws" is a term that can also address the lack of a certain law. There is no law that prevented the man from carrying a gun.

But that's nothing to do with the gun laws of the USA...

Where he a law abiding man that was not allowed to carry, he would not have shot him.

No. But that has no bearing on whether violence or death would have occurred.

Here in Germany I'm not even allowed to carry around a han-bo (60-90cm stick) without a lockable transporting bag, it is classified as a weapon. I know since I practice martial arts, all parts of German self defense and weapon laws are drilled into me as they will be used against me the moment I harm someone in defense.

Well, that's EU stick laws* for you...

For every crime that you name that could not be prevented by law, there is one I can find that could have. There is no black or white here...Laws are only useful if you abide them. It's not the law that stops crimes, it should be the consequence of braking the law that prevents the crime/deed.

I don't know what this has to do with what you quoted, where I was pointing out the flaws in the data you posted.

My opinion is that some consequences of "US gun law" are too lenient.

They're not consequences of "US gun law". They're consequences of states' gun laws.

*Look, when you say "the USA", don't think that's comparable with "Germany". Yes, they're both sovereign countries, but US governance doesn't work like that. "The USA" is comparable with "The EU" (only in a much more formal and monolinguistic fashion). "Germany" is comparable with "Florida", in this instance.

The EU doesn't interfere with Germany's laws that say how you can carry your sticks. The USA doesn't interfere with Florida's laws that say how you can carry your guns. A guy with a concealed carry permit in Tampa has as much to do with federal gun laws as you carrying tonfa sticks in Dusseldorf has to do with EU stick laws. Nothing.

Everyone could run around with a gun, but if their use had strong consequences, many would refrain from using them.

They do - the 300m guns in the hands of private citizens in the USA are very rarely fired outside of a shooting range. I'd wager that almost none are used in their entire lifetime other than at a shooting range or other legal pursuit involving firearms (such as hunting).

As for the gun death statistic, I did not investigate how much each of you listed subgroups of casualties factor in, but less guns would surely lead to less gun usage. Even scattered data plots can reveal trends...

As I said to the other guy, yes, having fewer guns would lead to fewer guns being used - but we already know that violent crime is on a par in disarmed European populations with tooled-up YooEssAy. Since violent crime is the problem, removing guns won't fix it - unless you believe Americans are considerably more civilised people and only kill each other because they have guns to do it, while Europeans are savages.

That's why I said "excessive use of force". Gun in a fistfight is something I classify as excessive personally.

What if the fist fight was with a MMA fighter or Andre the Giant?

The things with guns is that they level off power. If you have a gun, you have the same power as the other guy with a gun - and it doesn't matter what the physical differences between the two of you are.

Wait what? How is a fork even closely related to a gun? You eat with a gun? If its the killing aspect, I could kill someone with a single finger if I wanted. I can use my entire body as a weapon. I must really hate my body...
Tell me one purpose of a gun that does not include blasting a bullet through someone? Protection? The gun only protects through discouraging the attacker. The threatening with death is not really a "good deed", no matter the intention.

That's not the purpose of a gun. The purpose of a gun is to multiply force - much like every other tool we have - by a mechanism of chemically propelling a small mass at high speed to a remote location. Other people don't enter into it at any point.

I've used five guns for their purpose. I didn't put a bullet through anyone at all.

 

[Azuremen]

So if i get this right, it is not permitted to carry it around everywhere in Florida (so it is indeed stricter), yet the guy had one with him in the cinema. I bet even though the laws might be stricter in that state, guns are still as common as in other states because that is the general trend in America, almost every household has one...

And everyone in Spain is lazy and only works 15 hours a week and thus why Spain is bankrupt, right? See, we can make sweeping generalizations with no basis on reality at all. So instead, lets look at some research...

The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.

The article, which I believe used research from the University of Chicago. And last I checked, 50% isn't "almost every household" let alone 35%. And as someone that lives in the US, most people don't own guns that you'll meet, and most people that do own guns have several, thus why the numbers of firearms per capita are the way they are.

But please, continue to argue based on your assumptions and generalizations. Just don't get mad when people do the same to your country and culture.

 

[TB]

And as someone that lives in the US, most people don't own guns that you'll meet, and most people that do own guns have several, thus why the numbers of firearms per capita are the way they are.

As someone else who lives in the US, and more specifically the Upper-Midwest where hunting is an incredibly popular activity, I can completely vouch for that. Most of the guys that hunt deer also hunt ducks and geese, meaning that they have at least 2 firearms - a rifle and a shotgun (I'm sure you can figure out which one is for what). As Azuremen said, those with multiple firearms are still outnumbered by those, like myself, that have none.

From the aforementioned NY Times article:

The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.

Seems pretty sweeping to me.

 

[McLaren]

In this sentence you contradict yourself, nobody but you is mentioning 'facts'; you see; an opinion does not equal a fact, it is just an opinion.

Now i'm out of this thread, have a good one boys 👍

Which doesn't excuse your posts from being challenged & incorrect. Going to the "It's an opinion" card is just a cop out now that you have completely cut off any leg you may have been left to stand on.