BF2S Forums Remind me never to send my kids to school in Colorado

That doesn't prove that guns reduce crime.

Edit: Can you direct link to the article you took that from?  I'm having trouble finding it.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-09-28 21:19:43)

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

Yep, he killed one of his hostages and himself

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5387062.stm

That was the girl who was in critical condition until today.  Unfortunate she couldn't be saved.

Masques wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Hmm interesting how guns reduce crime, No it can't be, say it aint so.

You're confusing correlation with causation. I could also point to countries with extremely low rates of gun ownership that also have low violent crime rates. There are a LOT of guns in US urban areas (legal and otherwise) and yet violent crimes continue to happen even to those that have guns for protection. Threat of death doesn't necessarily translate to a reduction in crime rates. If that were the case, then countries with the death penalty would have zero murders.

A more salient question would be, why does the US have a higher violent crime rate than other countries regardless of their gun ownership rates.

Urgh I mispoke, I did not mean to imply that, and many liberals CONFUSE causation with correlation as well trying to say guns INCREASE crime.  Hah.  Violent crimes continue to happen, even if all guns were gone this would be true, what are you trying to get at it there?  Of course threat of death doesn't mean reduction in crime rate, I didn't say that and if I did I didn't mean it, I can't REPEAT everything I've said in previous posts in other threads, SORRY. 

Anyways, riddle me this than,

if gun ownership is at an ALL time high in the U.S. how can you BLAME guns if the crime rate is at a 30 year low????

You can't, thats a ridicolous notion, so than why is all the hatred towards guns, why don't we lock up criminals longer who use firearms in crimes? Why don't we focus on preventive measures and making sure that law abiding citizens have training in the use of their firearms and are able to competently defend themselves and others?

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-28 21:28:24)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Urgh I mispoke, I did not mean to imply that, and many liberals CONFUSE causation with correlation as well trying to say guns INCREASE crime.  Hah.  Violent crimes continue to happen, even if all guns were gone this would be true, what are you trying to get at it there?  Of course threat of death doesn't mean reduction in crime rate, I didn't say that and if I did I didn't mean it, I can't REPEAT everything I've said in previous posts, SORRY.  Anyways, riddle me this than, if gun ownership is at an ALL time high in the U.S. how can you BLAME guns if the crime rate is at a 30 year low????  You can't, thats a ridicolous notion, so than why is all the hatred towards guns, why don't we lock up criminals longer who use firearms in crimes? Why don't we focus on preventive measures and making sure that law abiding citizens have training in the use of their firearms and are able to competently defend themselves and others?

I'm not arguing against gun ownership, just the idea that high gun ownership = less crime. That assumption taken to it's logical extent would also have to hold that countries with personal firearm ownership bans would have sky high crime rates. That is demonstrably false. My point is that guns are irrelevant to the argument, they neither increase or decrease the occurrance of violent crime.

Masques wrote:

I'm not arguing against gun ownership, just the idea that high gun ownership = less crime. That assumption taken to it's logical extent would also have to hold that countries with personal firearm ownership bans would have sky high crime rates. That is demonstrably false. My point is that guns are irrelevant to the argument, they neither increase or decrease the occurrance of violent crime.

I never MEANT to say that HIGH OWNERSHIP AUTOMATICALLY EQUALS LESS crime, however you fail to read my post dude.  I said that you CAN NOT blame guns if gun ownership is high and the crime rate is LOW.  READ

You are most incorrect in your last sentence. 

There are thousands of crimes prevented every year by justifiable firearm use, 2000-3000 criminals killed every year by JUSTIFIABLE self defense uses of law abiding citizens, and billions, yes billions of propery and liability damages prevented every YEAR from firearm use.

From respected statistician and researcher John Lott:

Private citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals more than 2,000,000 times a year. Since the safety of children is often cited by gun opponents who don't want guns in private homes, the study analyzed deaths of children per year for the sake of comparison. For children under age 5 in the United States, less than 20 died of gunshot, about 100 drowned in bathtubs, and about 40 drowned in 5-gallon water buckets.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-28 21:43:55)

Actually, they don't decrease the chance of them happening, rather they increase the chance of a positive outcome............

And you seem to have missed what I said:  The fact that some countries have high gun ownership and low crime doesn't mean that gun ownership doesn't have a negative affect on crime, as these countries may be compensating for that negative affect with other initiatives.

Bubbalo wrote:

Actually, they don't decrease the chance of them happening, rather they increase the chance of a positive outcome............

And you seem to have missed what I said:  The fact that some countries have high gun ownership and low crime doesn't mean that gun ownership doesn't have a negative affect on crime, as these countries may be compensating for that negative affect with other initiatives.

Thank you for re-stating what I implied to write Bubbalo, well said.

And also I have to finally ask, what is with the Penguin or whatever the fuck that is in a redcoat?????

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-28 21:46:28)

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Actually, they don't decrease the chance of them happening, rather they increase the chance of a positive outcome............

And you seem to have missed what I said:  The fact that some countries have high gun ownership and low crime doesn't mean that gun ownership doesn't have a negative affect on crime, as these countries may be compensating for that negative affect with other initiatives.

Thank you for re-stating what I implied to write Bubbalo, well said.

And also I have to finally ask, what is with the Penguin or whatever the fuck that is in a redcoat?????

The Bristish Penguin, the red coat penguin? One of those?

lmao, i live in denver colorado and go to a public school. its totally safe and stuff. kthxbai. ^.^ V

Reciprocity wrote:

Had those young ladies taken some responsibility for their own lives, they would have been carrying Glock 21's.  They put themselves in that situation.  It's obviously their own fualt.




I am fluent in sarcasm.

I wish they could have, and trained properly, they would have been able to at least try and stop this shitstain excuse for a human being.

Miller wrote:

Actually they do decrease the chance of it happening.  Imagine, a world where anyone can have a gun.  Is a criminal really going to rob a store if he doesn't know whether or not the 80 year old lady next to him has a .44 in her purse? Would you, yourself, take a chance if you were a criminal.  It also does increase the positive outcome as you have stated. I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding my point to it.

Not necessarily. Drug related crime was very high in the 1980s and it would be (and still is) fair to assume that a high proportion of those involved in the drug "business" were/are armed and yet attacks against them increased. Indeed they were the targets of most of the violence with civilians caught in the crossfire. Their ownership of firearms and willingness to use them didn't deter assaults against them. Again, high rates of gun ownership don't deter crime, they might simply increase the likelihood that a give person will survive a violent attack.

lavadisk wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Had those young ladies taken some responsibility for their own lives, they would have been carrying Glock 21's.  They put themselves in that situation.  It's obviously their own fualt.




I am fluent in sarcasm.

i do think that if people were armed a lot of situations would be safer.

That depends on what you want to believe.  A lot of people, in fact the majority were armed in the Old West, yet the murder and violence rate was DRASTICALLY lower than it is today, but that is also due to a different society and time. 

When I carry, I am MORE COURTEOUS, MORE RESPECTFUL, AND LESS LIKELY to act ANGERILY in ANY situation.  I am more willing to forgive people and generally want to stay AWAY from ANY situation requiring me drawing my weapon.  I don't carry to go out looking for trouble, I carry to stay away from it.  I don't go to bars, I don't go to clubs, (mainly cuz I don't want to).  And if some crackpot came up to me and had a gun to my head asking for my wallet, I would give it to him unless I sensed something a little more uneasy about him, I would not draw my weapon because that sort of situation could prove fatal.  Too close to engage, little or no cover to use. 

I still contend that an armed society IS a polite society.  There are exceptions of course and I meet people that SHOULD not be carrying firearms.  It is all a matter of personal experience, perspective, and who you are talking about.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-28 22:06:37)

Masques wrote:

Their ownership of firearms and willingness to use them didn't deter assaults against them.

DUH, they are criminals, we aren't talking about CRIMINALS use of firearms for self defense, thats kinda missing the topic bud.  Of course it didn't deter aassaults against them, they're lifestyle INVITED that sort of thing, not owing guns, but the way they live.