What's your opinion of gun control?

[mOgliE]

By these guys logic we should ban anyone who has ever drank alcohol from getting a driver's license, since they might get drunk and cause an accident.

By these guy logic, you should take example on all the civilized countries that have lower crimes rates, lower deaths by firearms and lower mass shootings (never in fact)

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_%28Europe%29

Thanks for that data. To be honest it's so rare that we're not really aware of it! So I learned something here.

Could we still agree on the fact that USA, with half European population, had 200 mass shootings in last decades, which is more than the double of all mass shootings in the whole Europe EVER?

So I'd say it's still really low rate compared to yours. Though you did well to remind me they exist.

and understand that if anyone have a gun, it's not safer that if no one have a gun, except a few violents criminals that don't use it cause they know they'll get found easily if they do. And yes, criminals don't use their guns 99% of the time, at least in Europe, maybe we don't have the same criminals. And maybe it's because it's legal to have an ak47 in the USA.

Well, maybe you don't have the same criminals...

Then again, I am certain there are areas of Dublin, or Sarajevo, or Glasgow, or Moscova, or Tirana, that you would not be safe to go into unarmed.  Or Napoli, Belgrade, Sophia, Nottingham, or Limerick.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't feel any safer armed... What would I do? Show my gun to scare them?

[1714213328]

1714213328

[1714213328]

1714213328

[1714213328]

1714213328

[mOgliE]

I've got a question for you all gun owners. Did you already happen to be in a situation where your gun could have saved your life? Cause I never had a situation in which a gun would have been useful, and I don't know ANYONE who had been in a situation like this...

So maybe you've got a problem of criminality more than a problem of guns...

[Spendulus]

I've got a question for you all gun owners. Did you already happen to be in a situation where your gun could have saved your life? Cause I never had a situation in which a gun would have been useful, and I don't know ANYONE who had been in a situation like this...

So maybe you've got a problem of criminality more than a problem of guns...

You mean, except for practically all Yazidi women?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/636088/ISIS-chiefs-Women-become-Muslim-10-jihadis-rape-her

That's the problem with broad, poorly thought out progressive constructions of "what is right."

Humanity and it's cultures are infinitely diverse.

[TECSHARE]

Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else.

#1 Your statistics likely include:
-Justified use of police force
-Justified use of defensive force
-Suicides
-Mostly gang activity

#2 The question is not just how many deaths are caused by guns, but also how many deaths are PREVENTED by legal gun owners.

Of course gun owners protecting peoples lives and property without ever firing a shot is never covered in the media, but statistics clearly show legal gun ownership prevents more violence and crime in general than it causes. I don't know if you have heard but criminals don't give a shit about laws. Making more laws about guns does nothing to prevent them from acquiring and using firearms illegally, and this is a fact. If you wish to dispute this fact please attempt to use your "logic" to demonstrate to me how penalties after the fact prevent criminals from harming others. The television is not an educational tool, stop getting your "facts" from media bought and paid for by the same people that want the population unarmed so they can be more easily robbed and exterminated with the least amount of resistance.

Since you like TV so much here are a couple videos for you to watch, not that your cognitive dissonance will allow you to watch them all the way thru before you get nauseous from exposure to reality. The imaginary utopia you claim exists in other parts of the world is a much more comfortable delusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaaJr8mJbRo



http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."

[mOgliE]

Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else.

#1 Your statistics likely include:
-Justified use of police force
-Justified use of defensive force
-Suicides
-Mostly gang activity

#2 The question is not just how many deaths are caused by guns, but also how many deaths are PREVENTED by legal gun owners.

Of course gun owners protecting peoples lives and property without ever firing a shot is never covered in the media, but statistics clearly show legal gun ownership prevents more violence and crime in general than it causes. I don't know if you have heard but criminals don't give a shit about laws. Making more laws about guns does nothing to prevent them from acquiring and using firearms illegally, and this is a fact. If you wish to dispute this fact please attempt to use your "logic" to demonstrate to me how penalties after the fact prevent criminals from harming others. The television is not an educational tool, stop getting your "facts" from media bought and paid for by the same people that want the population unarmed so they can be more easily robbed and exterminated with the least amount of resistance.

Since you like TV so much here are a couple videos for you to watch, not that your cognitive dissonance will allow you to watch them all the way thru before you get nauseous from exposure to reality. The imaginary utopia you claim exists in other parts of the world is a much more comfortable delusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaaJr8mJbRo



http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."

Wow, so if there was gun control it would mean "tens of thousands" of people would be killed?

Well if that's the case your country is the shit of the world xD

I just know I live in a country with gun control, really strong one, and you know what? I'm 50 times less likely to be killed by firearm than you 

But if you're ok with that, just go on.

[TECSHARE]

Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else.

#1 Your statistics likely include:
-Justified use of police force
-Justified use of defensive force
-Suicides
-Mostly gang activity

#2 The question is not just how many deaths are caused by guns, but also how many deaths are PREVENTED by legal gun owners.

Of course gun owners protecting peoples lives and property without ever firing a shot is never covered in the media, but statistics clearly show legal gun ownership prevents more violence and crime in general than it causes. I don't know if you have heard but criminals don't give a shit about laws. Making more laws about guns does nothing to prevent them from acquiring and using firearms illegally, and this is a fact. If you wish to dispute this fact please attempt to use your "logic" to demonstrate to me how penalties after the fact prevent criminals from harming others. The television is not an educational tool, stop getting your "facts" from media bought and paid for by the same people that want the population unarmed so they can be more easily robbed and exterminated with the least amount of resistance.

Since you like TV so much here are a couple videos for you to watch, not that your cognitive dissonance will allow you to watch them all the way thru before you get nauseous from exposure to reality. The imaginary utopia you claim exists in other parts of the world is a much more comfortable delusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaaJr8mJbRo



http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."

Wow, so if there was gun control it would mean "tens of thousands" of people would be killed?

Well if that's the case your country is the shit of the world xD

I just know I live in a country with gun control, really strong one, and you know what? I'm 50 times less likely to be killed by firearm than you  

But if you're ok with that, just go on.

Please point to the logic in your statement. Looks like your opinion to me. Sorry but your opinion doesn't count as fact. By the way did you know that people who own automobiles are hundreds of times more likely to be killed in automobile accidents? Clearly the need to travel is invalidated by this fact just as the need to be able to defend one's self is by your logic.

P.S. Way to completely skip over the evidence and discussion presented. Cognitive dissonance FTW. Exposure to reality is too painful for you to bare apparently.

[mOgliE]

Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else.

#1 Your statistics likely include:
-Justified use of police force
-Justified use of defensive force
-Suicides
-Mostly gang activity

#2 The question is not just how many deaths are caused by guns, but also how many deaths are PREVENTED by legal gun owners.

Of course gun owners protecting peoples lives and property without ever firing a shot is never covered in the media, but statistics clearly show legal gun ownership prevents more violence and crime in general than it causes. I don't know if you have heard but criminals don't give a shit about laws. Making more laws about guns does nothing to prevent them from acquiring and using firearms illegally, and this is a fact. If you wish to dispute this fact please attempt to use your "logic" to demonstrate to me how penalties after the fact prevent criminals from harming others. The television is not an educational tool, stop getting your "facts" from media bought and paid for by the same people that want the population unarmed so they can be more easily robbed and exterminated with the least amount of resistance.

Since you like TV so much here are a couple videos for you to watch, not that your cognitive dissonance will allow you to watch them all the way thru before you get nauseous from exposure to reality. The imaginary utopia you claim exists in other parts of the world is a much more comfortable delusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaaJr8mJbRo



http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."

Wow, so if there was gun control it would mean "tens of thousands" of people would be killed?

Well if that's the case your country is the shit of the world xD

I just know I live in a country with gun control, really strong one, and you know what? I'm 50 times less likely to be killed by firearm than you  

But if you're ok with that, just go on.

Please point to the logic in your statement. Looks like your opinion to me. Sorry but your opinion doesn't count as fact. By the way did you know that people who own automobiles are hundreds of times more likely to be killed in automobile accidents? Clearly the need to travel is invalidated by this fact just as the need to be able to defend one's self is by your logic.

P.S. Way to completely skip over the evidence and discussion presented. Cognitive dissonance FTW. Exposure to reality is too painful for you to bare apparently.

No it's just that I don't really trust videos in general. It's a very biased media and I clearly prefer text elements that you can discuss more easily. Add to that the fact that I don't consider your limited intelligence deserve the hour of my time of your video.

The logic of my statement:
No gun -> less violence -> no need to defend yourself, police is enough.

Easy enough no?

My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years. Sounds like some proof to me, or at least less than just my opinion!

PS: if you feel the need to defend yourself... Well maybe you have others problems than jsut gun control. I don't feel I need that, police is here for the citizens in my country :/

[TECSHARE]

Please point to the logic in your statement. Looks like your opinion to me. Sorry but your opinion doesn't count as fact. By the way did you know that people who own automobiles are hundreds of times more likely to be killed in automobile accidents? Clearly the need to travel is invalidated by this fact just as the need to be able to defend one's self is by your logic.

P.S. Way to completely skip over the evidence and discussion presented. Cognitive dissonance FTW. Exposure to reality is too painful for you to bare apparently.

No it's just that I don't really trust videos in general. It's a very biased media and I clearly prefer text elements that you can discuss more easily. Add to that the fact that I don't consider your limited intelligence deserve the hour of my time of your video.

The logic of my statement:
No gun -> less violence -> no need to defend yourself, police is enough.

Easy enough no?

My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years. Sounds like some proof to me, or at least less than just my opinion!

That is convenient that you "don't trust videos in general", it seems to mirror your general distrust of inanimate objects like firearms rather than critically examining the actual usage of these tools. It makes it much easier for you to not have to actually engage in any fact or logic based debate. Apparently the same goes for the Bloomberg article that sources the very conservative estimates based on The National Crime Victimization Survey endorsed by a well respected pro-gun control Harvard scholar.  I bet you have no problem watching television and believing every word, but videos on the internet clearly are automatically suspect and should not even be reviewed. Probably for the best, if you watched them you might actually learn something, and I know how painful that must be for you.

"The logic of my statement:
No gun -> less violence -> no need to defend yourself, police is enough."

One question... lets assume for a minute that police don't have an average response time of 5-20 minutes and they are efficient at protecting you. What tools do they use to do this? Oh that's right, police use guns! In effect you aren't for banning guns, you are just for centralizing the use of force and giving the government a monopoly on violence. Obviously the government can be trusted! That has clearly worked so well in the past. I am not even going to bother making a long list of genocides perpetrated against disarmed populations by their own governments, just open any history book.

"My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years. Sounds like some proof to me, or at least less than just my opinion!"

Really? Are you sure about that? BTW if you are going to debate with me try using complete sentences, it is kind of difficult to debate a statement that doesn't even make sense linguistically. Additionally the statement "less shootings" is a nonsense statement because it does not differentiate from criminal assaults, suicides, gang activity, justified legal defensive use of force, or other instances of firearm use, therefore it is impossible to define in any meaningful way as you stated it. In summary, yes that is just your opinion.

Here is a list of per-capita crime rates by nation. Topping the list is most of Europe. Number 22 on the list, USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

Here it is again since you have difficulty with reading comprehension:
Re: Defensive use of firearms

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."

[BADecker]

Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else.

#1 Your statistics likely include:
-Justified use of police force
-Justified use of defensive force
-Suicides
-Mostly gang activity

#2 The question is not just how many deaths are caused by guns, but also how many deaths are PREVENTED by legal gun owners.

Of course gun owners protecting peoples lives and property without ever firing a shot is never covered in the media, but statistics clearly show legal gun ownership prevents more violence and crime in general than it causes. I don't know if you have heard but criminals don't give a shit about laws. Making more laws about guns does nothing to prevent them from acquiring and using firearms illegally, and this is a fact. If you wish to dispute this fact please attempt to use your "logic" to demonstrate to me how penalties after the fact prevent criminals from harming others. The television is not an educational tool, stop getting your "facts" from media bought and paid for by the same people that want the population unarmed so they can be more easily robbed and exterminated with the least amount of resistance.

Since you like TV so much here are a couple videos for you to watch, not that your cognitive dissonance will allow you to watch them all the way thru before you get nauseous from exposure to reality. The imaginary utopia you claim exists in other parts of the world is a much more comfortable delusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaaJr8mJbRo



http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."

Wow, so if there was gun control it would mean "tens of thousands" of people would be killed?

Well if that's the case your country is the shit of the world xD

I just know I live in a country with gun control, really strong one, and you know what? I'm 50 times less likely to be killed by firearm than you  

But if you're ok with that, just go on.

You don't realize that the leaders of your country look at the gun freedom that we have in America...

and are too afraid to make slaves of the people in your country...

because your leaders know that if they did...

the people of your country would rebel completely to get gun freedom...

because if they became slaves...

they would still see American freedom that is upheld by Americans with guns.

So, the people of the world governments look at gun freedom in America (and Switzerland), and are afraid to make slaves of their people because of American (and Swiss) gun freedom.

[morantis]

No matter what the moral standpoint, gun control will end poorly.  Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law.  If you place laws on who can own and use a gun the criminals will not be stopped because they will not follow those laws.  That means that in the end the only people with the guns will be the police and the criminals with no way for the common person to protect themselves.

[mOgliE]

That is convenient that you "don't trust videos in general", it seems to mirror your general distrust of inanimate objects like firearms rather than critically examining the actual usage of these tools. It makes it much easier for you to not have to actually engage in any fact or logic based debate. Apparently the same goes for the Bloomberg article that sources the very conservative estimates based on The National Crime Victimization Survey endorsed by a well respected pro-gun control Harvard scholar.  I bet you have no problem watching television and believing every word, but videos on the internet clearly are automatically suspect and should not even be reviewed. Probably for the best, if you watched them you might actually learn something, and I know how painful that must be for you.

I don't have TV. As I said I don't trust videos in general. It's not a good media.

"The logic of my statement:
No gun -> less violence -> no need to defend yourself, police is enough."

One question... lets assume for a minute that police don't have an average response time of 5-20 minutes and they are efficient at protecting you. What tools do they use to do this? Oh that's right, police use guns! In effect you aren't for banning guns, you are just for centralizing the use of force and giving the government a monopoly on violence. Obviously the government can be trusted! That has clearly worked so well in the past. I am not even going to bother making a long list of genocides perpetrated against disarmed populations by their own governments, just open any history book.

This is a VERY DIFFERENT debate. If you think it that way then gun freedom can be considered as something good. What I Tried to say is that guns lead to more violence and more crimes in the population. But if you're ready to endorse higher crime rates against the possibility to be armed in case the government doesn't satisfy you...

Well that's different. Why not. After all I perfectly agree, centralizing guns means giving more power to the state. I'm ready to do that siply because France has a history of revolutions, when the people had no weapons but managed to deal with its government anyway.

But this can justify gun freedom. I disagree but I understand and it's only a question of choice.

"My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years. Sounds like some proof to me, or at least less than just my opinion!"

Really? Are you sure about that? BTW if you are going to debate with me try using complete sentences, it is kind of difficult to debate a statement that doesn't even make sense linguistically. Additionally the statement "less shootings" is a nonsense statement because it does not differentiate from criminal assaults, suicides, gang activity, justified legal defensive use of force, or other instances of firearm use, therefore it is impossible to define in any meaningful way as you stated it. In summary, yes that is just your opinion.

Here is a list of per-capita crime rates by nation. Topping the list is most of Europe. Number 22 on the list, USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

Okay I don't understand the graph very well but it seems rather strange to me... According to you it means the most dangerous country in the world is Iceland? And Yemen and India (which is well known for its crime rates) are one of the safest? Oo

I mean, either there is a problem with your stats, either we have a problem with the representation of foreign countries xD

[mOgliE]

That is convenient that you "don't trust videos in general", it seems to mirror your general distrust of inanimate objects like firearms rather than critically examining the actual usage of these tools. It makes it much easier for you to not have to actually engage in any fact or logic based debate. Apparently the same goes for the Bloomberg article that sources the very conservative estimates based on The National Crime Victimization Survey endorsed by a well respected pro-gun control Harvard scholar.  I bet you have no problem watching television and believing every word, but videos on the internet clearly are automatically suspect and should not even be reviewed. Probably for the best, if you watched them you might actually learn something, and I know how painful that must be for you.

I don't have TV. As I said I don't trust videos in general. It's not a good media.

"The logic of my statement:
No gun -> less violence -> no need to defend yourself, police is enough."

One question... lets assume for a minute that police don't have an average response time of 5-20 minutes and they are efficient at protecting you. What tools do they use to do this? Oh that's right, police use guns! In effect you aren't for banning guns, you are just for centralizing the use of force and giving the government a monopoly on violence. Obviously the government can be trusted! That has clearly worked so well in the past. I am not even going to bother making a long list of genocides perpetrated against disarmed populations by their own governments, just open any history book.

This is a VERY DIFFERENT debate. If you think it that way then gun freedom can be considered as something good. What I Tried to say is that guns lead to more violence and more crimes in the population. But if you're ready to endorse higher crime rates against the possibility to be armed in case the government doesn't satisfy you...

Well that's different. Why not. After all I perfectly agree, centralizing guns means giving more power to the state. I'm ready to do that siply because France has a history of revolutions, when the people had no weapons but managed to deal with its government anyway.

But this can justify gun freedom. I disagree but I understand and it's only a question of choice.

"My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years. Sounds like some proof to me, or at least less than just my opinion!"

Really? Are you sure about that? BTW if you are going to debate with me try using complete sentences, it is kind of difficult to debate a statement that doesn't even make sense linguistically. Additionally the statement "less shootings" is a nonsense statement because it does not differentiate from criminal assaults, suicides, gang activity, justified legal defensive use of force, or other instances of firearm use, therefore it is impossible to define in any meaningful way as you stated it. In summary, yes that is just your opinion.

Here is a list of per-capita crime rates by nation. Topping the list is most of Europe. Number 22 on the list, USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

Okay I don't understand the graph very well but it seems rather strange to me... According to you it means the most dangerous country in the world is Iceland? And Yemen and India (which is well known for its crime rates) are one of the safest? Oo

I mean, either there is a problem with your stats, either we have a problem with the representation of foreign countries xD

[mOgliE]

That is convenient that you "don't trust videos in general", it seems to mirror your general distrust of inanimate objects like firearms rather than critically examining the actual usage of these tools. It makes it much easier for you to not have to actually engage in any fact or logic based debate. Apparently the same goes for the Bloomberg article that sources the very conservative estimates based on The National Crime Victimization Survey endorsed by a well respected pro-gun control Harvard scholar.  I bet you have no problem watching television and believing every word, but videos on the internet clearly are automatically suspect and should not even be reviewed. Probably for the best, if you watched them you might actually learn something, and I know how painful that must be for you.

I don't have TV. As I said I don't trust videos in general. It's not a good media.

"The logic of my statement:
No gun -> less violence -> no need to defend yourself, police is enough."

One question... lets assume for a minute that police don't have an average response time of 5-20 minutes and they are efficient at protecting you. What tools do they use to do this? Oh that's right, police use guns! In effect you aren't for banning guns, you are just for centralizing the use of force and giving the government a monopoly on violence. Obviously the government can be trusted! That has clearly worked so well in the past. I am not even going to bother making a long list of genocides perpetrated against disarmed populations by their own governments, just open any history book.

This is a VERY DIFFERENT debate. If you think it that way then gun freedom can be considered as something good. What I Tried to say is that guns lead to more violence and more crimes in the population. But if you're ready to endorse higher crime rates against the possibility to be armed in case the government doesn't satisfy you...

Well that's different. Why not. After all I perfectly agree, centralizing guns means giving more power to the state. I'm ready to do that simply because France has a history of revolutions, when the people had no weapons but managed to deal with its government anyway.

But this can justify gun freedom. I disagree but I understand and it's only a question of choice.

"My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years. Sounds like some proof to me, or at least less than just my opinion!"

Really? Are you sure about that? BTW if you are going to debate with me try using complete sentences, it is kind of difficult to debate a statement that doesn't even make sense linguistically. Additionally the statement "less shootings" is a nonsense statement because it does not differentiate from criminal assaults, suicides, gang activity, justified legal defensive use of force, or other instances of firearm use, therefore it is impossible to define in any meaningful way as you stated it. In summary, yes that is just your opinion.

Here is a list of per-capita crime rates by nation. Topping the list is most of Europe. Number 22 on the list, USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

Okay I don't understand the graph very well but it seems rather strange to me... According to you it means the most dangerous country in the world is Iceland? And Yemen and India (which is well known for its crime rates) are one of the safest? Oo

I mean, either there is a problem with your stats, either we have a problem with the representation of foreign countries xD

[TECSHARE]

"The logic of my statement:
No gun -> less violence -> no need to defend yourself, police is enough."

One question... lets assume for a minute that police don't have an average response time of 5-20 minutes and they are efficient at protecting you. What tools do they use to do this? Oh that's right, police use guns! In effect you aren't for banning guns, you are just for centralizing the use of force and giving the government a monopoly on violence. Obviously the government can be trusted! That has clearly worked so well in the past. I am not even going to bother making a long list of genocides perpetrated against disarmed populations by their own governments, just open any history book.

This is a VERY DIFFERENT debate. If you think it that way then gun freedom can be considered as something good. What I Tried to say is that guns lead to more violence and more crimes in the population. But if you're ready to endorse higher crime rates against the possibility to be armed in case the government doesn't satisfy you...

Well that's different. Why not. After all I perfectly agree, centralizing guns means giving more power to the state. I'm ready to do that siply because France has a history of revolutions, when the people had no weapons but managed to deal with its government anyway.

But this can justify gun freedom. I disagree but I understand and it's only a question of choice.

Actually this is still the same debate. Just because the information I presented is counter to your opinion does not magically make it another debate. You can try to say whatever you want, it does not make your opinion fact. The fact is that the statistics show that the US has less crime in general. To compare "violent crime" statistics we would need to do so on a country by country basis because every nations definition of violent crime is not the same. Even in this case in general violent crime is LESS common per-capita in the US than many nations where guns are banned.

Let me ask you this question. How many hundreds of millions of people have out of control governments killed in the last 100 years? Do you believe that the number of homicides by individuals comes even close to that number? This is not just a question of choice, it is a question of examining the facts. You may blindly trust your government, but most of the world doesn't share your viewpoint.

"My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years. Sounds like some proof to me, or at least less than just my opinion!"

Really? Are you sure about that? BTW if you are going to debate with me try using complete sentences, it is kind of difficult to debate a statement that doesn't even make sense linguistically. Additionally the statement "less shootings" is a nonsense statement because it does not differentiate from criminal assaults, suicides, gang activity, justified legal defensive use of force, or other instances of firearm use, therefore it is impossible to define in any meaningful way as you stated it. In summary, yes that is just your opinion.

Here is a list of per-capita crime rates by nation. Topping the list is most of Europe. Number 22 on the list, USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

Okay I don't understand the graph very well but it seems rather strange to me... According to you it means the most dangerous country in the world is Iceland? And Yemen and India (which is well known for its crime rates) are one of the safest? Oo

I mean, either there is a problem with your stats, either we have a problem with the representation of foreign countries xD

No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.


Additionally you have still not addressed my statistics for defensive use of force that clearly demonstrate guns are preventing more crimes than they are causing. I suppose now you don't trust national surveys endorsed by pro-gun control Harvard scholars now too?

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."

[mOgliE]

Ok I'll try to be organized:

-Yes the matter is different. I claim that guns makes the society more violent. You answer me that it allows people to defend themselves from government. Both statement can be true even if one is in favor of gun control and the other is against. I think the first one is more important but that's just a matter of preference.

-Do you think that owning guns make your government under control? Then answer my question, how many wars did the USA start? And how many people did the USA kill? If your government is "under control" then... WTF is a government out of control?

-"Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly?" I did, this is why I say I'm not sure I understand the statistic well... I just try to discuss with you you know? For the stats... Well sorry but I think you read it on the wrong direction. If I listen to what you say, Iceland is the most dangerous place in the world (by far) and India the safest? Look EVERYWHERE else on the internet and you'll see it's the contrary.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/64495/the-10-safest-countries-in-the-world-and-the-10-most-dangerous
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/safest-places-to-travel-the-15-most-peaceful-countries-in-the-world-a6748256.html
So I'd say you're the one not understanding your stats. You're really stupid aren't you? ^^
Bring some common sense dude.

For the last part... I didn't take the time to read what a dumb guy not able to understand a chart or to think alone recommended me.

[mOgliE]

No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.

Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity?

You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it?  

But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22.

[subSTRATA]

No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.

Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity?

You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it?  

But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22.

you forget that statistics only show what's known and reported, and in shitty countries, chances are a good portion of crimes aren't reported.

[mOgliE]

No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.

Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity?

You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it?  

But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22.

you forget that statistics only show what's known and reported, and in shitty countries, chances are a good portion of crimes aren't reported.

Right... So they are even lower? I don't understand you're trying to help me? ^^

[subSTRATA]

No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.

Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity?

You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it?  

But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22.

you forget that statistics only show what's known and reported, and in shitty countries, chances are a good portion of crimes aren't reported.

Right... So they are even lower? I don't understand you're trying to help me? ^^

are you okay? I thought it was pretty clearly implied that the actual number of crimes is much higher than the ones shown in the statistics. 'not reported' means not included in the statistics, hence giving the pretense that the crime rate is lower, when in reality, that is untrue.

you also need to take into account that with larger countries comes a larger population, and hence a larger number of people willing to commit crimes. mere statistics can only say so much, your arguments are too narrow minded.

[mOgliE]

No clearly you don't. Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your inability to read them correctly? The stats I referenced were for the GENERAL CRIME RATES of each country, not just violent crimes. You claimed the USA had higher crime rates, and I refuted that point with facts. It is not the fault of the statistics if you decide to change the definitions of your words when it is inconvenient for your argument not to do so.

Have you considered maybe the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity?

You see stats claiming (from what your understood) that the shitiest countries in the world are the safest and the most civilized countries are the most dangerous. And you don't even think about it?  

But well, thanks for making my point, the safest countries in the world are Europeans banning guns. USA is number 22.

you forget that statistics only show what's known and reported, and in shitty countries, chances are a good portion of crimes aren't reported.

Right... So they are even lower? I don't understand you're trying to help me? ^^

are you okay? I thought it was pretty clearly implied that the actual number of crimes is much higher than the ones shown in the statistics. 'not reported' means not included in the statistics, hence giving the pretense that the crime rate is lower, when in reality, that is untrue.

you also need to take into account that with larger countries comes a larger population, and hence a larger number of people willing to commit crimes. mere statistics can only say so much, your arguments are too narrow minded.

Yes but you're saying that crimes are not reported in shitty countries... Which already have incredile high crime rates... So they have even higher crime rates from what you explained.

You also need to take into account that the crime rate of the stats is per 1000 habitants, so that it doesn't matter the size of the country.

In case you didn't understand, TECSHare's stats are misleading because it gives the impression that high crime rates are in Iceland and Europe whereas it's a classification so the top countries are the one with the lower crime rate, not the higher.

Just look at any classification of safest countries, Europeans countries are number one