Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The Sandbox - NationalThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.
The study from the UN, which you so deftly pasted into your post in the smallest possible type size, shows Germany with a homicide by firearm rate of 0.2 per 100,000. The US, according to that study has a homicide by firearm rate of 3.2 per 100,000. DO THE MATH.
BTW - this is not the same study used in the OP.
Maybe you can find another gang violence report from Janet Reno's office to hang your hat on. Maybe something from Ed Meece? Or John Mitchell! LOL!
There's evidence right there that you've been talking out your ass, Wormy.
additionally, with all your squealing, did you even look at "crime" beyond murders? Naw, didn't think so.
You certainly picked some weak stuff IBSyndrome to hang your asshat on. But keep flailing away. Every post reveals more faulty reasoning and shoddy research. Even OP backed off on this one.
Best advice to you is to pick another fight another day. This one is over. You're done!
The study from the UN, which you so deftly pasted into your post in the smallest possible type size, shows Germany with a homicide by firearm rate of 0.2 per 100,000. The US, according to that study has a homicide by firearm rate of 3.2 per 100,000. DO THE MATH.
There's evidence right there that you've been talking out your ass, Wormy.
additionally, with all your squealing, did you even look at "crime" beyond murders? Naw, didn't think so.
You certainly picked some weak stuff IBSyndrome to hang your asshat on. But keep flailing away. Every post reveals more faulty reasoning and shoddy research. Even OP backed off on this one.
Best advice to you is to pick another fight another day. This one is over.
Hey, Assup the jackass, what you've discovered is that the U.S. non-gun homicide rate is nearly 3x's Germany's non-gun homicide rate. It doesn't change the singular fact that the U.S. homicide rate without guns still exceeds Germany's total homicide rate by a margin of 2:1. The only thing faulty or shoddy here is your attempt to deflect away from other factors that contribute to a higher homicide rate in the U.S. and that one of those factors is the pervasiveness of violence associated with the illicit drug trade. Since it's evident you still do not comprehend, Assup the jackass, call: 1-800-EAT-SHIT.
Hey, Assup the jackass, what you've discovered is that the U.S. non-gun homicide rate is nearly 3x's Germany's non-gun homicide rate. It doesn't change the singular fact that the U.S. homicide rate without guns still exceeds Germany's total homicide rate by a margin of 2:1. The only thing faulty or shoddy here is your attempt to deflect away from other factors that contribute to a higher homicide rate in the U.S. and that one of those factors is the pervasiveness of violence associated with the illicit drug trade. Since it's evident you still do not comprehend, Assup the jackass, call: 1-800-EAT-SHIT.
You can't read, or express yourself. Must be all that ASS you've been handed.
Germany's gun homicide rate is 16 times lower than that of the US per your study. SIXTEEN! Tighter gun regs, therefore, lead to lower gun homicides, using YOUR study.
What does comparing apples and oranges prove?
You can't prove anything and even when you think you can, you get it wrong!
give it a rest. You're long gone! Didn't they give you a batting helmet in Little League?
You can't read, or express yourself. Must be all that ASS you've been handed.
Germany's gun homicide rate is 16 times lower than that of the US per your study. SIXTEEN! Tighter gun regs, therefore, lead to lower gun homicides, using YOUR study.
You can't prove anything and even when you think you can, you get it wrong!
give it a rest. You're long gone!
Your focus on gun regulations alone as a solution is proved false by Brazil and Mexico, which have Draconian gun regulations, where their gun homicide rate is approximately 6xs and 3xs higher, respectively, than the U.S. The commonality these three countries share is an active and violent illicit drug trade. Your position is further proved false by the almost nonexistent gun homicide rate in Norway and Sweden where gun availability is high. So call: 1-800-EAT-SHIT; maybe, they'll help you find your ass, Assup the jackass.
But that's not the topic of this thread, is it! You want to start a new thread please do so, but running around in circles isn't going to do anything but make you look even stupider than you already do.
what's the topic of this thread? High gun ownership = low crime.
It's been debunked by a number of posters and the OP backed off. Yet you're still screaming in the dark and flinging feces.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE HERE! You want to start a new thread please do so, but running around in circles isn't going to do anything but make you look even stupider than you already do.
what's the topic of this thread? High gun ownership = low crime.
It's not true and you're just screaming in the dark.
No worries here, Assup the jackass. Nobody could look more stupid than you, Assup the jackass.
Oh yeah, anything to say about the Janet Reno study you presented to explain your position?
FUSHTA!
That study speaks for itself, Assup the jackass:
"The drug market is a major contributor to the Nation's homicide rate. Indeed, the peak in homicides during the mid-1980's was directly related to the saturation of urban areas with the. . . drug trade. . . . it is possible that homicide rates will begin to climb once more, as drug dealers are among those most likely to carry weapons."
You’re ridiculous, Speedy. Earlier you said demographic factors other than gun ownership are more important that gun ownership; yet, once again you present an argument that has as its base the sole issue of gun ownership! Once again, for your re-edification, the U.S. non-gun homicide rate was double Germany’s total homicide rate. Those U.S. homicides happened and there were NO guns involved, Speedy, signifying other issues are at play will you and other libratards quibble over the weapon of choice.
BTW, remember this little factoid next time you or one of your libratard buddies wants to partake of some illicit recreational substance “that doesn’t hurt anybody”:
Your main problem is you read and don't even TRY to understand what a person is saying. Then when anyone disagrees with you, you call them "Libtards" as if that is insulting. But I guess thats what Conservatards do and how they think.
There were 2 different issues being discussed. Neither the U.N. statistics nor the CDC statistics give reasons as to why the homicide rates are what they are. UNDERSTAND SO FAR?? I NEVER referred to non-gun homicide rates. Irrelevant to the discussion at this time. We are talking GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT??
Now if you want to compare gun homicide rates between the U.S. and Germany (not sure why you want to), in 2012 there were 9,146 in the U.S. and 158 in Germany.
So I'll state my opinion yet again with the hopes that you will TRY to understand it:
The U.S has a great problem with the number of gun-related homicides. When compared with other countries with similar demographics (poverty levels, education levels) the statistics look even worse. Now here's what might be confusing your little brain -- guns are inanimate objects but they make it easier to kill. I would much rather face a person armed with a knife than armed with a gun. If there was no such thing as a gun and the weapon of choice to kill another person was a knife, the homicide rate would drop significantly. That is such a ridiculously true statement I hate to have to make it. Certainly the homicide rate by weapons other than a gun would rise, as some of the 9,146 people killed by gun would still be dead.
And your quote about juvenile drug dealers and gang members and how many used guns is TOTALLY irrelevant. Yes a significant number use guns but the question was of the 9,146 gun homicides, how many were done by them? Doubful it was many as you would make others believe.
Your main problem is you read and don't even TRY to understand what a person is saying. Then when anyone disagrees with you, you call them "Libtards" as if that is insulting. But I guess thats what Conservatards do and how they think.
There were 2 different issues being discussed. Neither the U.N. statistics nor the CDC statistics give reasons as to why the homicide rates are what they are. UNDERSTAND SO FAR?? I NEVER referred to non-gun homicide rates. Irrelevant to the discussion at this time. It’s only irrelevant to you and your ilk because you insist on blaming an inanimate object, Speedy. You’ve yet to prove or establish that those homicides, the ones you’re holding up as supporting evidence to your argument, would not have occurred if there had been no guns. We are talking GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT??
Now if you want to compare gun homicide rates between the U.S. and Germany (not sure why you want to), in 2012 there were 9,146 in the U.S. and 158 in Germany. Which means absolutely nothing without comparing the total populations of each country and comparing other cultural issues, Speedy.
So I'll state my opinion yet again with the hopes that you will TRY to understand it:
The U.S has a great problem with the number of gun-related homicides. When compared with other countries with similar demographics (poverty levels, education levels) the statistics look even worse. Now here's what might be confusing your little brain -- guns are inanimate objects but they make it easier to kill. Where did you prove the murders would not have occurred if there had been no guns? I would much rather face a person armed with a knife than armed with a gun. If there was no such thing as a gun and the weapon of choice to kill another person was a knife, the homicide rate would drop significantly. Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun, Speedy; neither did Kaczynski. That is such a ridiculously true statement I hate to have to make it. Certainly the homicide rate by weapons other than a gun would rise, as some of the 9,146 people killed by gun would still be dead. Exactly!!!
And your quote about juvenile drug dealers and gang members and how many used guns is TOTALLY irrelevant. Yes a significant number use guns but the question was of the 9,146 gun homicides, how many were done by them? Doubful it was many as you would make others believe. 25% to 50%: there’s no recent, comprehensive study, but if you would trouble yourself to read a local newspaper almost every murder is related to the illicit drug trade.
Do you believe the drug and gun culture in the US has changed since the 80s? or that there is better data of hang your hat on?
And why even try to edit it like you did. Are you so certain people around here are going to take you at your word?
25-50% of all gun related homicides are committed by juvenile drug dealers and gang members? REALLY? Based on Janet Reno's study of juvenile,crime in the 80s?
And since there has been "no recent comprehensive study since then" that you can find, we're supposed to believe that by reading "a local" newspaper, we can determine that "almost every murder is related to the illicit drug trade?"
I suppose that might be the case if your local paper is from Nuevo Laredo, but even then, it's a stretch.
A 30 year old set of statistics just doesn't wash if you're playing a numbers game.
But all that aside, your fanatical devotion to these studies which you obviously found on google indicates that you disagree with Whirlyturd's original point.
More guns DO NOT equal lower crime.
So I guess after all of that, you do agree with us!
There were 14 homicides in Austin in 2012. It is IMPOSSIBLE to tell for certain if ANY or ALL of them were gang related. If you read the conditions surrounding the homicides, none of them would probably be considered gang or drug releated. More than half were domestic disputes. The other most common scenario was 2 people who were acquaintances, getting into an argument, usually after drinking, and one pulls a gun and shoots the other.
Unfortunately. you are so caught up in your own misguided thought patterns that it is meaningless to continue the discussion with you. So feel free to continue your calling others who disagree with you in any way "libtards" and assume that anyone who preaches any level of gun control is out to take away all your guns.
There were 14 homicides in Austin in 2012. It is IMPOSSIBLE to tell for certain if ANY or ALL of them were gang related. If you read the conditions surrounding the homicides, none of them would probably be considered gang or drug releated. More than half were domestic disputes. The other most common scenario was 2 people who were acquaintances, getting into an argument, usually after drinking, and one pulls a gun and shoots the other.
