Here I go what? What point are you trying to make?
And that’s why I am still happy to start an analysis of the 30 largest cities in the U.S. and Canada and put aside rural issues for now. It may have to wait until after the holidays, though.
Wait, what? You got a cite for that?
Except a gun, right? The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun; isn’t that the argument?
I thought it was funny after the Thousand Oaks shooting a couple of weeks ago when conservatives were saying fewer people would have been killed if country & western bars had more armed patrons, completely ignoring the fact the the problem was an armed patron. Ironic that.
Full disclosure: I am pretty ambivalent on this topic and actually lean more toward the pro-gun side. I think there is nothing wrong with universal background checks and licensing. I think the real problems we have in this country with guns have to do with mental health care and poverty. Gun violence is a symptom, not a cause.
I’m at a loss as to what you’re talking about. Do American cities have more murders, and particularly murders with guns, than comparably-sized Canadian cities?
If it’s specific to rifles, I could see it. Since most of the murders involving guns in the U.S. specifically involve handguns (including the attempted murder that wounded the namesake of the Brady Bill), I admit being a tad curious about the whole “assault weapon” thing. It’s like the law is being informed more by Hollywood depictions than actual crime stats.
Ah, that makes sense. Still like to see a cite though.
I know the question was not directed towards me, but hereyou go. Pretty common information.
So the fuck what? I never get tired of this old(and it IS old) goalpost move where the topic is firearms and the deaths they cause, and someone tries to make a lame attempt to change the subject to just rifles and the deaths they cause.
Where are your stats for firarms deaths vs. knife deaths?
Tell me how many more people were killed by fists and feet then by firearms, and while you’re at it, could you please break it down as to how many were killed by fists as opposed to how many killed by feet?
:rolleyes:
You cannot claim on one hand that knives, hands and feet are supposedly deadlier, then turn around and claim that firearms are your best defense. Might I suggest that you arm yourself with a knife, or maybe use your ever-so-effective fists and feet to defend yourself with?
I always carry cigarettes for self-defense. They’re SUPER lethal…
The post was self explanatory. It’s not the tool that kills, it’s the person. If you take away one tool, another will be used.
American cities have more murders Than Canadian cities because there is a culture of violence driving it.
Yes, knives and martial arts are great until you’re set upon by more than one person. Imagine if you or someone you know is attacked by a group of hooligans intent on doing harm. In that situation a gun is the preferred method of defense.
I’ve been there before. It’s not something I’d like to repeat but I can discuss the matter with you because I’m still alive.
And I’d like to add that I’m getting to an age where it’s tougher to defend myself with fists and knives.
The Altheimer study I linked to upthread supports at least the “tool” part with regards to assault and robbery. From its conclusion:
This study examined the relationship between city levels of gun availability and the individual odds of assault and robbery victimization. These results suggest that city gun availability does matter when it comes to explaining individual odds of gun victimization, but not individual odds of total robbery and total assault victimization (pp. 22-23).
However, when the “tool” in question is a gun there are some predictable effects:
These results lend support to a weapon instrumentality effect rather than a facilitation effect. From these results we can conclude that assaults perpetrated in cities with high levels of gun availability may be more likely to end in serious injury or death than assaults carried out in cities with lower levels of gun availability. Furthermore, we can also conclude that robberies carried out in cities with high levels of gun availability may be more deadly and involve more lucrative targets than robberies carried out in cities with lower levels of gun availability. Stated differently, if gun availability levels influence individual odds of gun crime victimization, and the use of a gun during the commission of a crime influences the target of a crime and its outcome, then it should be safe to conclude that gun availability levels indirectly effect (sic) the target of a crime and its outcome (Ibid. p. 23).
FBI statistics
And I don’t talk in slogans.
I am stating the the single best self defense weapon is a firearm.
The whole good guy with a gun thing is stupid.
I for one do not and will not stop “bad guys” with a gun.
I am not a cop and I don’t want to be a cop
In fact my personal philosophy on concealed carry is that my weapon is solely for self defense or the defense of my wife and not the general public.
If I see anyone getting the crap kicked out of them then I’ll call the cops but I will not draw my firearm because IMO if anyone chooses not to own a weapon or chooses not to carry for self defense then I assume his choice is to place his safety in the hands of government law enforcement and I will respect that choice.
All I did was to state a fact.
I never said anything about one being deadlier than another. The fact is that anything can be deadly.
The point is people kill people
People have always killed people
People will always kill people
So do you want to defend yourself with your fists, a knife, or a firearm?
And yet the gun control freaks in the US only seem to call for a particular style of rifle to be banned.
But you obviously missed my point
People kill people
People have always killed people
People will always kill people
These are 3 facts as irrefutable as gravity.
Human beings are the most violent animal to ever walk this earth
Knowing this the question is why wouldn’t you want a firearm
And the answer is, if everyone else in my environment gets to have one too, then there is a higher chance getting killed by a firearm.
The predictable effect of a study about gun violence is that the gun is the focus and not the behavior behind it.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, that a magical force eliminates all personal firearms from the world in an instant, and magically keeps them gone for a period of one year. No handguns, no long guns, no small arms at all.
Magiver, Blues Man, and the thread at large: During this Year of No Guns, do overall numbers of murders and suicides increase, decrease, or remain constant?
Since guns don’t kill people the question doesn’t have an answer that doesn’t involve magic.