- 99
Irrelevant, skewed, and uncorrelated data. Why are you trying to justify taking away freedoms from US citizens with flawed logic?
US Almost Overturned Gun Rights... but didn't
- Thread starter Danoff
- 67 comments
- 5,354 views
Irrelevant, skewed, and uncorrelated data. Why are you trying to justify taking away freedoms from US citizens with flawed logic?
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
Mexico- Strict gun laws, murder rate of 12 per 100,000 in 2008
USA- 'lax gun laws , murder rate of 5.4 per 100,000 in 2008.
Here's another one. People LOOOVVE to compare the American and Canadian homicide rates. Well, just for kicks, how bout we compare Canada and Switzerland?
Canada has loads of restrictions, (I complained about them earlier in the thread). Switzerland, on the other hand, has much more lax gun control. In Switzerland, all adult males are allowed to take home their military rifle (converted to semi automatic) after they complete their service. Every year, there is compulsory training with military weapons. So as a result, you have a very well armed populace that is trained to kill. Hunters don't have to have permits for hunting rifles. Muzzleloading rifles are unregulated. You don't need permits for sport shooting. You can rent guns at a range. So of course, the murder rate in "barbaric" Switzerland is much higher than in "civilized" Canada, right? Wrong.
Canadian homicide rate in 2008- 2.05 per 100,000
Swiss homicide rate in 2008- 1.01 per 100,000
At the end of the day, nether of us can use these facts as justification for our point. Correlation does not equal causation. It's not about lowering the murder rates, it's about protecting a right inherent in the US constitution.
Fun fact: Swiss authorities report 34 murders/ attempted murders with guns, compared to 69 with blades, and 16 unarmed (2006)
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating that the government hand out military rifles to everyone
Last edited:
- 6,977
- old-guy64
Liz, so many people have taken up for me that I almost feel superfluous.
And the chart you refer to is just number of rapes, not the conditions under which they were commited.
And as for homicide: let's just say that, including the use of a drinking straw, I can think of a dozen ways to kill, without a gun, off the top of my head, and I'm neither a martial arts expert, nor trained as a commando, though I was in the military.
Also, if you look at my country's most "successful" murderers, you'll note that guns did not figure too highly in their crimes. Guys like "Son of Sam" were actually the anomalies.
If you review the story of Charlie Manson, you'll note that the LaBianca and Tate murders were carried out with edged weapons, as guns are too noisy.
Ted Bundy killed with his bare hands. The various "rippers" used knives, The various stranglers used belts, stockings, neckties, etc as ligatures....
You will also note that most rapists and rape-murders, the victims were subdued with a knife, or clubbed unconscious, or drugged into submission (date-rape drugs)
For the most part: People that are protecting themselves prefer guns because not only are they decisive in the right hands, the noise of gun shots rarely fails to bring the police. And if a law-abiding citizen is forced to discharge a firearm in the act of protecting themselves, then they WANT the police to come deal with the aftermath. Also keep in mind, more guns are brandished, causing the bad guys to decide they picked the wrong house, business or person to accost, than are actually fired.
You have to realize that a lot more of the US is "wide-open spaces" than is big city. And some of these spaces span many thousands of square miles with very few LEO's to "Serve and Protect" the far-flung citizenry.
The criminals know that they may have anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours to perpetrate crimes against people and property. The tiny town I live in covers approx 25 square miles. This doesn't include the people that live on farms and off the beaten path. We usually have 4 officers covering all that space. Do the math. That's 4 officers responsible for the safety of 30,000 people in the city limits, and the people that live "out in the county".
So, would you want to wait for the police to deal with the guy who, not only has you at a physical disadvantage, but also waves a knife at you with intent to rape and possibly kill you? Or do you want to pull your pistol from under the pillow and scare the guy away, or, God forbid, shoot the guy if needed to preserve your safety and your virtue?
In the grand scheme of things, I believe you'd rather the police were investigating your involvment in a self-defense shooting, than investigating your rape, or rape-murder.
Our news, very likely doesn't get to you, but if you Google up the "Waldo Rapist", you'll note that there was a rapist in Waldo, Missouri (about 50 miles from me) that raped several women at knife point, before he was finally caught. I believe that if one of those women, particularly the first one, had been able to bring a gun to bear, and not necessarly to shoot-but to scare off or subdue, it might have saved the rest of his victims a lot of pain and heartache.
And the chart you refer to is just number of rapes, not the conditions under which they were commited.
And as for homicide: let's just say that, including the use of a drinking straw, I can think of a dozen ways to kill, without a gun, off the top of my head, and I'm neither a martial arts expert, nor trained as a commando, though I was in the military.
Also, if you look at my country's most "successful" murderers, you'll note that guns did not figure too highly in their crimes. Guys like "Son of Sam" were actually the anomalies.
If you review the story of Charlie Manson, you'll note that the LaBianca and Tate murders were carried out with edged weapons, as guns are too noisy.
Ted Bundy killed with his bare hands. The various "rippers" used knives, The various stranglers used belts, stockings, neckties, etc as ligatures....
You will also note that most rapists and rape-murders, the victims were subdued with a knife, or clubbed unconscious, or drugged into submission (date-rape drugs)
For the most part: People that are protecting themselves prefer guns because not only are they decisive in the right hands, the noise of gun shots rarely fails to bring the police. And if a law-abiding citizen is forced to discharge a firearm in the act of protecting themselves, then they WANT the police to come deal with the aftermath. Also keep in mind, more guns are brandished, causing the bad guys to decide they picked the wrong house, business or person to accost, than are actually fired.
You have to realize that a lot more of the US is "wide-open spaces" than is big city. And some of these spaces span many thousands of square miles with very few LEO's to "Serve and Protect" the far-flung citizenry.
The criminals know that they may have anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours to perpetrate crimes against people and property. The tiny town I live in covers approx 25 square miles. This doesn't include the people that live on farms and off the beaten path. We usually have 4 officers covering all that space. Do the math. That's 4 officers responsible for the safety of 30,000 people in the city limits, and the people that live "out in the county".
So, would you want to wait for the police to deal with the guy who, not only has you at a physical disadvantage, but also waves a knife at you with intent to rape and possibly kill you? Or do you want to pull your pistol from under the pillow and scare the guy away, or, God forbid, shoot the guy if needed to preserve your safety and your virtue?
In the grand scheme of things, I believe you'd rather the police were investigating your involvment in a self-defense shooting, than investigating your rape, or rape-murder.
Our news, very likely doesn't get to you, but if you Google up the "Waldo Rapist", you'll note that there was a rapist in Waldo, Missouri (about 50 miles from me) that raped several women at knife point, before he was finally caught. I believe that if one of those women, particularly the first one, had been able to bring a gun to bear, and not necessarly to shoot-but to scare off or subdue, it might have saved the rest of his victims a lot of pain and heartache.
Last edited:
- 272
- Down in the Ozarks, USA
- DVNT_ST8
If you will look at the rates for Switzerland. The only other country to allow citizens to kep thier firearms at home has some of the lowest rates on both scales.
Also, John Lott has completed extensive studies on crime rates in reference to gun control. Google his name to find his studies.
- 816
- Albuquerque, NM
- jswilli1 / GTP_jswilli1 (GT5 only)
- jswilli1
NRA Ad opposing Elena Kagan's Confirmation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihiJrXUzyEo&feature=player_embedded
I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights about once a month and go target shooting at least until Deer season opens in November. In the year that I have lived here in NM I have shot many a rifle and handgun. Everything from a PS90, AK-47, AK-74, AR-15, SKS, Mauser, .50 cal Black Powder, the list goes on. In a state that recognizes both open carry and Concealed permit most people I know here own a gun or several! Next month I will be taking my Concealed carry class for the first time with some coworkers. I want to be "grandfathered" on everything I can in case our lunatics in D.C. start getting their way. In the past year I have had the opportunity to take several "first" time shooters and educate them on guns and gun safety. More recently I have become a Scout Leader (Tiger) and Merit Badge counselor for the Boy Scouts. I plan on becoming a certified NRA instructor so I can continue to educate the scouts on gun safety and hunting and sign off their merit badges.
I'm not a statistical person since data is skewed, interpreted how it wants to be, and doesn't always tell the whole story. Bottom line is guns don't kill people, people kill people. Gun control is holding it with BOTH hands.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihiJrXUzyEo&feature=player_embedded
I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights about once a month and go target shooting at least until Deer season opens in November. In the year that I have lived here in NM I have shot many a rifle and handgun. Everything from a PS90, AK-47, AK-74, AR-15, SKS, Mauser, .50 cal Black Powder, the list goes on. In a state that recognizes both open carry and Concealed permit most people I know here own a gun or several! Next month I will be taking my Concealed carry class for the first time with some coworkers. I want to be "grandfathered" on everything I can in case our lunatics in D.C. start getting their way. In the past year I have had the opportunity to take several "first" time shooters and educate them on guns and gun safety. More recently I have become a Scout Leader (Tiger) and Merit Badge counselor for the Boy Scouts. I plan on becoming a certified NRA instructor so I can continue to educate the scouts on gun safety and hunting and sign off their merit badges.
I'm not a statistical person since data is skewed, interpreted how it wants to be, and doesn't always tell the whole story. Bottom line is guns don't kill people, people kill people. Gun control is holding it with BOTH hands.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
On that note, that was the point I was trying to make with my earlier post. For every statistic in favour of gun control, there's a stat against it. The two camps can piss stats at eachother all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is an inanimate object, and can't kill somebody any more than a knife, water bottle, or golf club, until somebody picks it up and pulls the trigger.
