kpmarine
Well-Known Member
I know right? Until I looked into it more a few years ago, I didn't know either. Damn flimsy car doors these days can't stop a pistol. I want my '71 Chevy back. Sadly, that 402 just couldn't agree with my gas budget...
Burglar's relative says: "He could have used a warning shot first..."
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
LOL - It is hilarious watching you Americans get your gun boners. Scurrying to find little snippets of info to try to make your countries murder rates look not quite as horrifically bad is amusing. I think I'll get some popcorn.
If a study came out tomorrow that irrefutibly proved that higher gun rates, and the attitude towards guns in the USA causes the higher murder rates (which they both do) you morons would still try to spew out your "GO MURICA, GO GUNS" attitude.
I love firearms, I probably own more than you two nincompoops put together, the only difference is I have a brain capable of figuring out the causation between an insanely armed populace with lax rules, and an incredible high murder rate. (One that rivals Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, etc., etc., etc.)
GO MURICA. Keep killing yourselves, the rest the world will laugh.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
So you acknowledge that it is the owner, and not the gun, that is the inherent issue? I will say that relative gun ownership and relative gun homicides are an important metric if you want to compare multiple countries. If I have 2x the homicides by gun, but 12x the gun ownership; would it not reasonably be something other than just the guns? I'm not saying that a firearm is not a convenient killing tool. I'm just saying that most people who kill without good reason have other motivations or serious problems.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
According to stats Canada;
Those are total murders, not even just guns.... that's everything.
611 is the biggest numbe, so let's use that.
611/34,800,000*100,000 = 1.75 per 100,000 people.
(The lowest number gives us 543/34,800,000*100,000 = 1.56 murders per 100,000)
USA RATES;
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2013.xls
14,612/313,000,000*100,000 = 4.66
1.75 VS 4.66 = Canada wins. By a long shot.
Not only are you much more likely to be shot to death in the USA, you're more likely to just straight up get murdered by any means.
| 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| homicides | |||||
| Canada | 611 | 610 | 554 | 598 | 543 |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 5 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Prince Edward Island | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Nova Scotia | 12 | 15 | 21 | 22 | 17 |
| New Brunswick | 3 | 12 | 9 | 8 | 6 |
| Quebec | 92 | 88 | 84 | 105 | 108 |
| Ontario | 176 | 178 | 189 | 161 | 162 |
| Manitoba | 54 | 57 | 45 | 53 | 52 |
| Saskatchewan | 30 | 36 | 34 | 38 | 29 |
| Alberta | 110 | 95 | 77 | 109 | 85 |
| British Columbia[SUP]1[/SUP] | 117 | 118 | 83 | 87 | 71 |
| Yukon | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Northwest Territories | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Nunavut | 4 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 5 |
Those are total murders, not even just guns.... that's everything.
611 is the biggest numbe, so let's use that.
611/34,800,000*100,000 = 1.75 per 100,000 people.
(The lowest number gives us 543/34,800,000*100,000 = 1.56 murders per 100,000)
USA RATES;
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2013.xls
14,612/313,000,000*100,000 = 4.66
1.75 VS 4.66 = Canada wins. By a long shot.
Not only are you much more likely to be shot to death in the USA, you're more likely to just straight up get murdered by any means.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
I agree, it's people not guns that kill people. Guns make it exponentially easier, but that's another argument. Guns also allow for the best defense, again, another argument.
It's the attitude that people have towards guns, and the value people hold towards other peoples lives that make murders more or less prevalent, not fear from criminals of being shot by lawful gun owners. If more guns was the answer, the USA would by far, have the lowest murder rates. 89 guns for every 100 people means a well armed populace, but apparently its done nothing to stop gun murders. It's in fact, it's made them substantially worse than the rest of the developed world.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Okay, you have a totally reasonable argument. Guns, in theory, are a great supplement to a defensive posture. Sadly, people get a damn gun and suddenly feel the need to demonstrate to the world that they have a big dick too.
You know, like walking onto your lawn and telling people that aren't on your property that you'll kill them if they move without actually announcing your legal authority.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Hit the nail on the head there.
If someone is in your home, unannounced, attempting to rob you or worse, by all means shoot them. If someone is stealing your neighbours TV, why would you shoot them other than to get your rocks off and feel like a 'tough guy' with a gun?
This is the point I make about human life, seems a lot of Americans don't give a flying fuck about anyone but themselves. I know, I know, it's a 'lowlife criminal'. Again, that's a huge attitude difference between Americans and other people in the world. Criminals are still people, and don't deserve to die for theft under $25 for example.
Why are Americans so afraid of everything and everyone? Why the overwhelming urge to arm yourselves to the teeth?
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
I generally agree, I would not risk a life or severe bodily harm (The only time I feel deadly force is warranted.) to stop a guy stealing a tv. However, if you bust out my living room window and crawl in, then you're about to learn what a "failure drill" is.
I'm no expert on the matter, but I would speculate that part of it is never having pointed a gun at a human who they could shoot legally.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Totally. I'm not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination. I'm anti-gun for idiots. Seriously, if you're the type of person that would shoot someone in the back that's running away after breaking into your neighbours house, you should not own a firearm. You are an idiot.
One of the problems with a country having a plethora available to anyone is that idiots like Desert dude, and Kynes are going to undoubtedly be given the same freedom to purchase them when they lack the same cognitive capacity as responsible gun owners.
Laws that protect CCW holders from being charged after discharging their firearms in public and hitting innocent bystanders are stupid too.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
That's how I feel. Was your life in danger? No? Well, then why did you put it in danger?
If you have to kill someone on the street, then it should only be because you are trying to kill them first.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
The propagation of idiocy by lack of litigation is astounding. People that shoot people in the back should be in jail. The fact that he isn't in jail, only serves to strengthen the position idiots have that "it's ok to shoot people in the back".
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
I would grant that there is a VERY narrow group of explanations for shooting someone in the back. The sad thing is that there is no regular marksmanship and/or (Preferably both)stress test for any CCW that I know of.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
I could think of a few reasons:
1. You like your neighbor and look after him,
2. You feel it's against man and God's law to steal,
3. Ethics and a sense of integrity aka right versus wrong,
4. Your hero is Joe Horn and you want to be like him.
LISTEN!
[video=youtube;LLtKCC7z0yc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc&feature=related[/video]
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
1.) He established he didn't like those neighbors as much; since he "would have already done something" had it been them.
2.)God says all sins are equal, why aren't you killing everyone else; since god says "the wages of sin is death" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" that might get tricky.
3.)Shooting someone who is no threat to someone is only cowardice.
4.)Joe horn repeatedly ignores his right to defense and asserts his right to defend shit that isn't his. He decided to step out and fail to identify his legal authority to stop them. Nobody wants to be Joe unless they have dick insecurity. I heard 3 shots, and one was so distant that there is literally no way to categorize him as a threat. The cops were there before he fired, and he decided to be John Wayne. There is no heroism in killing people who weren't a threat to anyone; that is dick insecurity at its finest.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
You cite ethics????
You think it's moral to murder someone that has done zero harm to you, and has placed you in harms way exactly zero times? You are part of the problem.
Ever hear of the punishment needs to fit the crime? How does murder = theft?
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
But, but, Jesus said so. In no scripture ever... Also, FREEDOM!!!!!
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Joe Horn was not indicted. He got off. There was a march on Joe Horn's home by Black Panthers doing their usual cries of discrimination. They were quickly met by a huge group of supporters and later on bikers chanting "USA, USA, USA....", could have really gone nasty. The black protesters left. End of story and a happy ending now that those genetics are not on earth to pollute the genetic pool. This is how it's done in Texas!
[video=youtube;TEZ9s0ZBAu8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEZ9s0ZBAu8[/video]
[video=youtube;TEZ9s0ZBAu8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEZ9s0ZBAu8[/video]
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
So now you're touting that might makes right and identifying inferior genetics? I'll be damned if that doesn't ring a bell...
EDIT: Note How a huge group in Ben's chosen video shout "Get a job" at the black protesters. I assume they aren't familiar with the fact that blacks are now allowed to take vacations while (now willingly) employed and protest shit like white folks telling them to get a job. I feel I must emphasize that because these black people are protesting, they are told to get a job.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Inferior genetics? So, which gene is the 'theft' gene? You moron.
The Nazi party was the majority in Germany too, that doesn't make it right. I don't think it's necessarily discrimination, Joe Horn is just an idiot that shouldn't have access to firearms.
So it has nothing to do with guns, thanks for admitting as much.