Coreece 190 #76 June 14, 2014 1001001sos *** So explain why the USA has by far the highest homicide rate of any nation with a similar culture and similar state of economic development. Are you SURE it's because the USA has a higher % of its population with murderous tendencies? The fact that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership among these nations doesn't occur to you as a possibility? You sure you want to stick that statement? And why compare us to only similar cultures and similar states of economic development as you put it? I can tell you why cause it makes us look worse than we really are. He raises a legitimate point...look, I'm probably giving him more credit than he deserves, but he's a former college professor. I'm guessing that the methods ingrained in his very soul are designed to make us think... When we don't give an acceptable answer, it is met with ridicule... EDIT: Just think of him as more of a bot, and you'll do just fine.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #77 June 14, 2014 Are you sure you want to stick to that statement? Comparing the US to El Salvador? Ethiopia? sure that makes sense... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #78 June 14, 2014 1001001sos*** So explain why the USA has by far the highest homicide rate of any nation with a similar culture and similar state of economic development. Are you SURE it's because the USA has a higher % of its population with murderous tendencies? The fact that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership among these nations doesn't occur to you as a possibility? You sure you want to stick that statement? And why compare us to only similar cultures and similar states of economic development as you put it? I can tell you why cause it makes us look worse than we really are. While the United States has the highest level of gun ownership per capita in the world, its rate of gun homicides, about three per 100,000 people, is far lower than that of Honduras, the country with the world's highest gun homicide rate (82.1 gun murders per 100,000 people). And according to a 2011 study done by the UN of the 20 most murderous countries in the world the United States didn't even make the list. http://www.businessinsider.com/1homicidal-countries-2011-11?op=1 There's a link to the UN's report in this article. The Washington Post on the other hand took that same report and and did exactly what you said to do, compare us to similar countries. Got that spin thing going on don't ya know. I think I'll take the UN's word before I would the Washington Post's. Leave it to certain media outlets to try and spin it though into something it's not instead of actually reporting on what the UN's report actually said. Heck even Mexico didn't make the top 20 #20. Ethiopia Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 25.5 Reported homicides: 20,239 Year: 2008 #19. Puerto Rico Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 26.2 Reported homicides: 983 Year: 2010 #18. Central African Republic Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 29.3 Reported homicides: 1,240 Year: 2008 #17. Congo Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 30.8 Reported homicides: 1,180 Year: 2010 #16. Colombia Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 33.4 Reported homicides: 15,459 Year: 2010 #15. Lesotho Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 33.6 Reported homicides: 723 Year: 2009 #14. South Africa Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 33.8 Reported homicides: 16,834 Year: 2009 #13. Trinidad and Tobago Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 35.2 Reported homicides: 472 Year: 2010 #12. Malawi Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 36.0 Reported homicides: 5,039 Year: 2008 #11. Uganda Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 36.3 Reported homicides: 11,373 Year: 2008 #10. Zambia Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 38.0 Reported homicides: 4,710 Year: 2008 #9. Saint Kitts and Nevis Wikimedia Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 38.2 Reported homicides: 20 Year: 2010 #8. Virgin Islands Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 39.2 Reported homicides: 43 Year: 2007 #7. Guatemala Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 41.4 Reported homicides: 5,960 Year: 2010 #6. Belize Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 41.7 Reported homicides: 130 Year: 2010 #5. Venezuela Getty Images Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 49.0 Reported homicides: 13,985 Year: 2009 #4. Jamaica Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 52.1 Reported homicides: 1428 Year: 2010 #3. Cote d'Ivoire Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 56.9 Reported homicides: 10,801 Year: 2008 #2. El Salvador Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 66.0 Reported homicides: 4,085 Year: 2010 #1. Honduras Homicide rate (murders per 100,000 people): 82.1 Reported homicides: 6,239 Year: 2010 Is there a reason that the years are different? Like maybe it would be like climate science if there weren't cherry picked dates and facts?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #79 June 14, 2014 turtlespeed Is there a reason that the years are different? Like maybe it would be like climate science if there weren't cherry picked dates and facts? it's unlikely anything with ill motive, just a matter of last available data. Developing nations don't prioritize these sort of things. If the divergence was more than 2 years, say getting past 5, it's a fair question. Now if someone cites Norway and deliberately picks or skips the year with the terrible shooting, that would be suspicious. I don't believe any of these 20 have such a data point to worry about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #80 June 14, 2014 tkhayesAre you sure you want to stick to that statement? Comparing the US to El Salvador? Ethiopia? sure that makes sense... I am thinking comparing the level of violence in a developed western democracy and the posted third world shitholes might have no basis. I have travelled fairly extensively and even to some of those countries. I do not think I have ever moved the furniture to block the door to the room in any western democracy or visited a market or bazaar in a developed country to pick up something I might use to protect myself with in one either. I have done exactly those things in some of the more sketchy places though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Backintothesky 0 #81 June 15, 2014 I wouldn't be so sure about similar culture, Switzerland has a militia based firearms culture and there are very few if any school massacres (obviously there are population size differences to take into account). Banning guns is no guarantee of ending these attacks. A determined attacker will find other means. IF PEOPLE REALLY CARED ABOUT ENDING VIOLENT DEATH THEY WOULD BE CALLING FOR A BAN ON ALCOHOL. kallend*** Banning guns doesn't help - murderous people will ALWAYS find a way. So explain why the USA has by far the highest homicide rate of any nation with a similar culture and similar state of economic development. Are you SURE it's because the USA has a higher % of its population with murderous tendencies? The fact that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership among these nations doesn't occur to you as a possibility? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #82 June 15, 2014 BackintotheskyI wouldn't be so sure about similar culture, Switzerland has a militia based firearms culture and there are very few if any school massacres (obviously there are population size differences to take into account). Banning guns is no guarantee of ending these attacks. A determined attacker will find other means. IF PEOPLE REALLY CARED ABOUT ENDING VIOLENT DEATH THEY WOULD BE CALLING FOR A BAN ON ALCOHOL. ****** Banning guns doesn't help - murderous people will ALWAYS find a way. So explain why the USA has by far the highest homicide rate of any nation with a similar culture and similar state of economic development. Are you SURE it's because the USA has a higher % of its population with murderous tendencies? The fact that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership among these nations doesn't occur to you as a possibility? And Switzerland's model for firearms ownership is TOTALLY different from the US model. Are you SURE you'd like the US to adopt Switzerland's rules?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #83 June 15, 2014 1001001sos*** So explain why the USA has by far the highest homicide rate of any nation with a similar culture and similar state of economic development. Are you SURE it's because the USA has a higher % of its population with murderous tendencies? The fact that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership among these nations doesn't occur to you as a possibility? You sure you want to stick that statement? And why compare us to only similar cultures and similar states of economic development as you put it? I can tell you why cause it makes us look worse than we really are. While the United States has the highest level of gun ownership per capita in the world, its rate of gun homicides, about three per 100,000 people, is far lower than that of Honduras, the country with the world's highest gun homicide rate (82.1 gun murders per 100,000 people). The very fact that the only countries you can find that make the US look good are third world shitholes simply confirms my statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #84 June 16, 2014 kelpdiver *** Lol...here you go twisting again. Did you mean stolen in the US or stolen in general? Unless you want to claim that the majority of gun crimes relate to legally owned firearms.....but that doesn't help your position much. Anyone here able to translate this into English? What I see here is the ramblings of a crazy person whose words were translated into 5 different languages and then back into English. I suspect that was the intent - you can't argue with crazy. Nice PA You are right, it doesn't make sense when you don't quote everything. And you found a little circle jerk buddy to agree with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #85 June 16, 2014 SkyDekker***words were translated into 5 different languages and then back into English. You are right, it doesn't make sense when you don't quote everything. Just for fun: English You are right, it doesn't make sense when you don't quote everything. French Vous avez raison, il n'a pas de sens si vous n'avez pas tout citer. Catalan Tens raó, no té sentit si no s'inclou tot. Filipino Tama ka, nakakagawa walang kahulugan kahit na hindi kasama. Esperanto Vi pravas, ĝi ne havas sencon, se vi ne mencii Spanish Tienes razón, después de haber hecho no tiene sentido, incluso excluidos. Back to English You're right, having made no sense, even excluded.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #86 June 16, 2014 rhaig ******words were translated into 5 different languages and then back into English. You are right, it doesn't make sense when you don't quote everything. Just for fun: English You are right, it doesn't make sense when you don't quote everything. French Vous avez raison, il n'a pas de sens si vous n'avez pas tout citer. Catalan Tens raó, no té sentit si no s'inclou tot. Filipino Tama ka, nakakagawa walang kahulugan kahit na hindi kasama. Esperanto Vi pravas, ĝi ne havas sencon, se vi ne mencii Spanish Tienes razón, después de haber hecho no tiene sentido, incluso excluidos. Back to English You're right, having made no sense, even excluded. See, you don't quote the whole message....and it doesn't make sense. Thank you for making my point for me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #87 June 17, 2014 BillyVanceSometimes, legal gun ownership has its benefits. They stop a crime in progress. http://news.yahoo.com/two-men-girl-human-shield-until-her-father-040007545.html Then again: www.nydailynews.com/opinion/dangerous-good-guy-myth-article-1.1829274... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #88 June 17, 2014 Having a gun did not get Joseph Wilcox killed any more than having pepper spray would have gotten Jon Meis killed had his intervention not gone as planned (for instance, if there was a second armed suspect, or if Ybarra was carrying a sidearm.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #89 June 17, 2014 champuHaving a gun did not get Joseph Wilcox killed... ) Interesting way to twist the facts of the case. He was carrying a gun and was killed by another person who also was carrying a gun, targeted apparently BECAUSE he was carrying a gun.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #90 June 17, 2014 kallend***Having a gun did not get Joseph Wilcox killed... ) Interesting way to twist the facts of the case. He was carrying a gun and was killed by another person who also was carrying a gun, targeted apparently BECAUSE he was carrying a gun. Upon truncation of my sentence to its first third, changing its meaning entirely, I might be inclined to disagree with it. But then we'd both be arguing with a fictional party, and I wouldn't want to encroach. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #91 June 17, 2014 champu******Having a gun did not get Joseph Wilcox killed... ) Interesting way to twist the facts of the case. He was carrying a gun and was killed by another person who also was carrying a gun, targeted apparently BECAUSE he was carrying a gun. Upon truncation of my sentence to its first third, changing its meaning entirely, I might be inclined to disagree with it. But then we'd both be arguing with a fictional party, and I wouldn't want to encroach. Funny, you were congratulation kelpdiver for doing the same thing. At least be consistent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #92 June 17, 2014 SkyDekker ***Upon truncation of my sentence to its first third, changing its meaning entirely, I might be inclined to disagree with it. But then we'd both be arguing with a fictional party, and I wouldn't want to encroach. Funny, you were congratulation kelpdiver for doing the same thing. At least be consistent. Here is the entire exchange between you and kelpdiver. In the one instance where he didn't include your entire comment, I've restored it as noted in blue... kallend Guns don't start out illegal. They start out legal and somewhere along the line hundreds of thousands each year make the move from legal gun owners to criminals. kelpdiver Do they come from the same place as legal cocaine? Or heroin? SkyDekker Most cocaine and heroin is manufactured illegally. Are you contending a sizeable group of guns in circulation were manufactured illegally? kelpdiver guns that are smuggled in with drug shipments from outside US borders were never "legal." SkyDekker Maybe not legal in the US, but from your statement you can't conclude the gun wasn't legallly manufactured in the first place. kelpdiver it's a pointless distinction to make. If the claim is that legal gun owners are arming criminals, but in reality the crooks are getting the bulk of their weapons via illegal purchase methods or from foreign lands, then summarizing it all as legal guns is simply deceitful. Which is exactly how to describe kallend's point. SkyDekker lol, It doesn't help your position to try and twist and turn out of statements which are simply true. Most guns are manufactured legally and then find their way to the illegal market. Most cocaine and heroin is manufactured illegally and stays on the illegal market. Trying to argue out of that simple fact just weakens the rest of your arguments. (so please keep doing it ) kelpdiver Freethefly posted the only useful fact in this thread - that stolen guns are a tiny portion of those used to commit crimes. And it hardly surprises me that you nor Kallend stayed well clear of it, preferring instead to state gems like 'ok, maybe it wasn't legal in the US, but it must be legal somewhere else, some other time.' SkyDekker Lol...here you go twisting again. Did you mean stolen in the US or stolen in general? Unless you want to claim that the majority of gun crimes relate to legally owned firearms.....but that doesn't help your position much. kelpdiver Anyone here able to translate this into English? What I see here is the ramblings of a crazy person whose words were translated into 5 different languages and then back into English. I suspect that was the intent - you can't argue with crazy. Clearly this good faith argument of yours was derailed by kelpdiver's selective quoting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #93 June 18, 2014 No it was derailed by kelpdiver stating that the manufacturing of guns and cocaine/heroin is identical. Quote If the claim is that legal gun owners are arming criminals, but in reality the crooks are getting the bulk of their weapons via illegal purchase methods or from foreign lands, then summarizing it all as legal guns is simply deceitful. This is where it completely goes off the rails. However, if you cannot find the logical fallacy in that statement, then my very limited English will indeed not make it any clearer for you. However, I'll try to explain the "crazy ramblings" Kelp: Quote Freethefly posted the only useful fact in this thread - that stolen guns are a tiny portion of those used to commit crimes. So either kelpdiver claims that most gun crimes are commited with legally owned guns, or he is claiming that guns smuggled in from foreign lands have not been stolen. Hence: Quote Did you mean stolen in the US or stolen in general? Unless you want to claim that the majority of gun crimes relate to legally owned firearms.....but that doesn't help your position much. I'll give kelpdiver the benefit of the doubt and assume he understood the logic. That would explain why he completely stopped addressing the points and started with the PA. This is all in an effort by kelpdiver (and you) to discredit the following statement: Most guns are manufactured legally. Most cocaine/heroin is manufactured illegally. I know, ramblings of a crazy person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #94 June 18, 2014 kallend's comment about carelessness of gun owners arming criminals was US centric. I included some links in post #55 to try to clarify that context, and to clarify that kallend was indicting US firearm owners for being victims of theft. You participated in that previous thread too. Similarly, kelpdiver's heroin/cocaine statement was US centric. He meant that firearms, heroin, and cocaine smuggled into the US were never legal in the US, so they were guns in the hands of US criminals, not by the fault or misfortune of legal US gun owners. Your argument that the guns were potentially stolen outside the US prior to being smuggled doesn't really help kallend's statement because this wasn't his point. kallend was trying to paint a picture with the statistic he found of hundreds of thousands of people leaving handguns on their drivers seat when they go in to a Walmart or something, and a criminal smashing a window, taking the gun, and robbing a gas station, finally getting his drug dealer business off the ground, or committing a mass shooing with it. "hundreds of thousands of crimes with hundreds of thousands of guns" he says. But that's a huge leap. Guns aren't stolen because a stolen gun is valuable to a person who wants to use it in a crime and then throw it in a mailbox, guns are stolen because they are valuable, period. People buy all sorts of stolen shit without then going on to commit crimes with them. And, criminals that do use guns to commit violent crimes have plenty of avenues to get them besides stealing them from "careless" legal owners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #95 June 18, 2014 champukallend's comment about carelessness of gun owners arming criminals was US centric. I included some links in post #55 to try to clarify that context, and to clarify that kallend was indicting US firearm owners for being victims of theft. You participated in that previous thread too. Similarly, kelpdiver's heroin/cocaine statement was US centric. He meant that firearms, heroin, and cocaine smuggled into the US were never legal in the US, so they were guns in the hands of US criminals, not by the fault or misfortune of legal US gun owners. Your argument that the guns were potentially stolen outside the US prior to being smuggled doesn't really help kallend's statement because this wasn't his point. kallend was trying to paint a picture with the statistic he found of hundreds of thousands of people leaving handguns on their drivers seat when they go in to a Walmart or something, and a criminal smashing a window, taking the gun, and robbing a gas station, finally getting his drug dealer business off the ground, or committing a mass shooing with it. "hundreds of thousands of crimes with hundreds of thousands of guns" he says. But that's a huge leap. Guns aren't stolen because a stolen gun is valuable to a person who wants to use it in a crime and then throw it in a mailbox, guns are stolen because they are valuable, period. People buy all sorts of stolen shit without then going on to commit crimes with them. And, criminals that do use guns to commit violent crimes have plenty of avenues to get them besides stealing them from "careless" legal owners. So you are abusing my statement to try and discredit something kallend said. You'll notice that in my comments I never placed fault with legal gun owners. It is still a simple fact that guns move from legal markets to illegal markets. And, that most drugs are different from that, since they are illegal from manufacture. You and kelp then counter that statement by arguing how that isn't the fault of the US legal gun owner because few guns used in crimes are stolen in the US. In short, you are trying to discredit a fact to counter an accusation I haven't made. And I am the one doing the crazy ramblings. Funny stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #96 June 18, 2014 SkyDekkerSo you are abusing my statement to try and discredit something kallend said. You'll notice that in my comments I never placed fault with legal gun owners. It is still a simple fact that guns move from legal markets to illegal markets. And, that most drugs are different from that, since they are illegal from manufacture. You and kelp then counter that statement by arguing how that isn't the fault of the US legal gun owner because few guns used in crimes are stolen in the US. In short, you are trying to discredit a fact to counter an accusation I haven't made. And I am the one doing the crazy ramblings. Funny stuff. No one cares about your irrelevant "simple fact." No one is interested in discrediting it. It does not support kallend's statements, nor could it be used to refute kallend's statements even if anyone wanted to put it to that purpose. It is useless, inert, and tangential. It serves no purpose and is, in all ways associated to the conversation at hand, inoperative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #97 June 18, 2014 SkyDekkerNo it was derailed by kelpdiver stating that the manufacturing of guns and cocaine/heroin is identical. It's hilarious seeing you whine like a broken horse about your words being twisted, and then you write gems like this. QuoteYou and kelp then counter that statement by arguing how that isn't the fault of the US legal gun owner because few guns used in crimes are stolen in the US. The entire discussion started with Kallend's opt repeated claim that careless gun owners are the source for criminals to get guns. So of course our comments will be focused on that. Private citizens have no control over straw purchases or gun makers in Brazil. If Kallend wants to say, careless gun owners provide the tools for a tiny minority of criminal behavior and should take care, fabulous. So far, he seems disinterested in a more truthful claim. As do you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #98 June 18, 2014 WASHINGTON – About 1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This number represents an estimated average of 232,400 firearms stolen each year— about 172,000 stolen during burglaries and 60,300 stolen during other property crimes. Now, these are just guns REPORTED stolen. You may try to weasel out by claiming that they weren't legal, but that would require believing that the owners of guns owned illegally would report the theft to the police. And once stolen, is the gun legally owned by the thief?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #99 June 18, 2014 review post #31. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #100 June 19, 2014 kelpdiverreview post #31. Doesn't in any way invalidate the statistics I quoted. Some 1/4 million guns pass from legal owners to criminals every year in the USA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
