Stopping Murders in the USA ?

[neon joe]

Again, it should never get to this point.

There are ways to avoid these situations, as I posted way back on page 8 or 9, self defense is not just a firearm. A woman who has SA (situational awareness) can recognize errant behavior before the distance closes enough for violence to be the only option.

I agree, and replied to Bluefront in a similar way.

On the contrary, you've explained your viewpoint quite well. You make wild assumptions about people who carry guns, so why can't I make assuptions about you based on the comments you have made? Your naivete shows in the assertion that your wife will not ever be attacked. Unless she travels with a personal bodyguard at all times, there is never a time when one can be completely safe from attack. I carry a handgun, and I don't walk around by myself downtown either - as I said on page 8 or so. And I don't pull a gun on everyone that seems to be following me.

Ok, point taken. Maybe 'never' is too strong a word. However, my wife has someone with her if she's going downtown (even though 'downtown' here means 'downtown Appleton'). She is alone sometimes, like when she goes to get groceries (during the day), but the De Pere Wal-Mart isn't really known for it's crime problem.

Having said this, realize that I support gun ownership, I just don't think that having a gun as self-defense is any more effective than, say, mace, or a taser... and less effective than taking some simple precautions.

[Erssa]

You're making huge assumptions that the woman would not be aware of her surroundings, that the bad guy would have a gun, be more proficient with his firearm than the woman with hers, that the bad guy's weapon (likely a saturday night special) would actually function, that the woman would be instantly incapacitated...

The biggest assumption is that the woman would not be aware of her surroundings. Women who carry firearms for self defense have already decided that they will not be oblivious to danger. For the average thug to approach such a woman and get close enough to neutralize her with one shot is highly unlikely. You can generalize all you want, but your comment about someone drawing a weapon every time they think they are being followed shows that you have not given your personal safety much consideration. Don't project your lack of preparedness on others who ma have quite a bit more foresight.

I think it's you who's making huge assumptions. According to Pennsylvania coalition against rape, 70% of rape and sexual assault victims know their attacker, of surveyed college women, about 90% of rape and sexual assault victims knew their attacker prior to the assault, in another survey of college women, 13.3% indicated that they have been forced to have sex in a dating situation. 90% of acquaintance rapes involve alcohol. It's really hard to find proper statistics for victim alcohol use, because it's not politically correct to victimize women for their rapes, but I found at least two sources saying that 50% of women admit being drunk when raped. The sober ones are the ones who are in a relationship with the rapist. And in I believe some women won't even admit the use of alcohol. At least in Finland ~ 80-90% of raped women are drunk. And almost every rape where a stranger rapes the woman happens when the woman is walking home from a bar. Overall only 8% of rapes here are done by strangers.

So it's safe to assume the woman are caught off guard, because:
a) she knows the victim
b) is incapasitated by alcohol
c) or is unaware of the attacker

The paranoid women, who see every man only as potential rapists and walk the streets with pepper sprays in their pockets, are not even targeted by rapists in the first place. No sane rapist would even consider raping sober women, when there are just so much easier prey to be found. The odds for a sober women to be targeted by an unknown rapist are from slim to none. This is why guns aren't really that useful against rapes, even if own one, you aren't likely to be carrying it when the attempt occurs.

[Trip]

Qviri,

I haven't seen you post since my previous reply. All I said in response to you was:

But to a crazed big government worshiper this might sound good... (power! muahahaha glorious power! they have no guns, they're defenseless!) for the rest of us, it's frightening. We've read of Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot... we know what powerful tyrants are capable of.

And I said that only because I'd misread your previous post as saying you thought those who defend gun rights are crazy.

IOW, I said that only to make a point, that either side could be portrayed as crazy, not as a personal attack of course.

[87GN]

You're making huge assumptions that the woman would not be aware of her surroundings, that the bad guy would have a gun, be more proficient with his firearm than the woman with hers, that the bad guy's weapon (likely a saturday night special) would actually function, that the woman would be instantly incapacitated...

The biggest assumption is that the woman would not be aware of her surroundings. Women who carry firearms for self defense have already decided that they will not be oblivious to danger. For the average thug to approach such a woman and get close enough to neutralize her with one shot is highly unlikely. You can generalize all you want, but your comment about someone drawing a weapon every time they think they are being followed shows that you have not given your personal safety much consideration. Don't project your lack of preparedness on others who ma have quite a bit more foresight.

I think it's you who's making huge assumptions. According to Pennsylvania coalition against rape, 70% of rape and sexual assault victims know their attacker, of surveyed college women, about 90% of rape and sexual assault victims knew their attacker prior to the assault, in another survey of college women, 13.3% indicated that they have been forced to have sex in a dating situation. 90% of acquaintance rapes involve alcohol. It's really hard to find proper statistics for victim alcohol use, because it's not politically correct to victimize women for their rapes, but I found at least two sources saying that 50% of women admit being drunk when raped. The sober ones are the ones who are in a relationship with the rapist. And in I believe some women won't even admit the use of alcohol. At least in Finland ~ 80-90% of raped women are drunk. And almost every rape where a stranger rapes the woman happens when the woman is walking home from a bar. Overall only 8% of rapes here are done by strangers.

So it's safe to assume the woman are caught off guard, because:
a) she knows the victim
b) is incapasitated by alcohol
c) or is unaware of the attacker

The paranoid women, who see every man only as potential rapists and walk the streets with pepper sprays in their pockets, are not even targeted by rapists in the first place. No sane rapist would even consider raping sober women, when there are just so much easier prey to be found. The odds for a sober women to be targeted by an unknown rapist are from slim to none. This is why guns aren't really that useful against rapes, even if own one, you aren't likely to be carrying it when the attempt occurs.

I could disassemble this entire post and prove you wrong on nearly every point, just like I did regarding your WWII post, but it isn't worth my time.

[87GN]

Again, it should never get to this point.

There are ways to avoid these situations, as I posted way back on page 8 or 9, self defense is not just a firearm. A woman who has SA (situational awareness) can recognize errant behavior before the distance closes enough for violence to be the only option.

I agree, and replied to Bluefront in a similar way.

On the contrary, you've explained your viewpoint quite well. You make wild assumptions about people who carry guns, so why can't I make assuptions about you based on the comments you have made? Your naivete shows in the assertion that your wife will not ever be attacked. Unless she travels with a personal bodyguard at all times, there is never a time when one can be completely safe from attack. I carry a handgun, and I don't walk around by myself downtown either - as I said on page 8 or so. And I don't pull a gun on everyone that seems to be following me.

Ok, point taken. Maybe 'never' is too strong a word. However, my wife has someone with her if she's going downtown (even though 'downtown' here means 'downtown Appleton'). She is alone sometimes, like when she goes to get groceries (during the day), but the De Pere Wal-Mart isn't really known for it's crime problem.

Having said this, realize that I support gun ownership, I just don't think that having a gun as self-defense is any more effective than, say, mace, or a taser... and less effective than taking some simple precautions.

Glad we see somewhat eye to eye on this. Believe it or not I agree that taking certain precautions are more effective than just having a gun. But for that last 2-3% of safety, I carry a gun.

[Erssa]

I could disassemble this entire post and prove you wrong on nearly every point, just like I did regarding your WWII post, but it isn't worth my time.

Then why even bother replying?

I could disassemble your every post and prove you wrong on nearly every point. Constructive.

[aristide1]

I could disassemble your every post and prove you wrong on nearly every point. Constructive.

He could take the BF approach and just call you a liberal.

[laserred]

BF's approach is still easier for you to swallow than the truth, which is that you're suffering from a cranio-rectal insertion. Guns are just like fire: Once man had gun, man will never be without gun. For man to be without gun would be a devolutionary step back towards chimpdom, and going, "Look, Ma, I've got opposable thumbs on my tootsies!" The proper evolutionary step is to actually rid societies of murderers, rapists, thieves, and the like. And you gun oppositionists, you've got it all wrong. A gun's only meaning for being is not to kill. A gun's true meaning is to impart a mental flag into the mind of a possible adversary: "Hmm. That guy have gun. Maybe me not commit crime today." See "Sound of Riot Shotgun Loading Ammunition." Even if a homeowner didn't have a gun, but had that recording and it was played loudly instead of a home alarm, I bet the results would be almost as good as the real thing. The .002% of people who still had to use that shotgun are glad they still have the right to possess it.

[aristide1]

Given how often a police officer has to pull out his gun, which is then met by a far larger weapon, I wonder about the validity of your claim.

For man to be without gun would be a devolutionary step back towards chimpdom

And to think man will not commit crimes, be greedy, with or without guns, is to assume that position you mentioned. So for those who are so far in favor of guns that even background checks pose an imposition on your rights, well then get used to murders, and easier ones at that. You also seem to think that when someone comes to rob or rape they show up alone, with just one gun and two hands.

A pair of dobermans would work just as well, and they don't have drunken arguments, egos to bruise, and in general a better aim.
But I suspect that a lot of "men" who need to show off that weapon, in whatever form you please(sight or sound), also have that childish need to draw other kinds of attention to themselves, showing off a Rolex, gold jewelery, etc, instead of going with the more stealth approach.

As other mentioned before, suppose I was interested in robbing a house. I carry a gun for protection, like you, not all of crooks want the hassle of a murder rap. In the unarmed area I rob, hopefully when nobody is home and leave. Compare that to the TX mentality, instead of being surprised by some home owner hiding and then shooting me I would rather just watch them for a while from outside, wait until they exit the bathroom in just a towel, and shoot them in the head immediately, then take the money. Adjustments are made for the environment, just like when cops just started wearing bullet proof vests, all of a sudden everyone is aiming for your head, not your belly.

And what do you believe will be the end result if you kill a gang member? Hero or dead hero?

[87GN]

Given how often a police officer has to pull out his gun, which is then met by a far larger weapon, I wonder about the validity of your claim.

Ah, I see. Because "big gun" = dead police officer. Unfortunately, police officers have carried long guns, shotguns and rifles that is, since policemen rode horseback. And the advantage goes to the person who has the better training, not the person with the bigger gun.

A pair of dobermans would work just as well, and they don't have drunken arguments, egos to bruise, and in general a better aim.
But I suspect that a lot of "men" who need to show off that weapon, in whatever form you please(sight or sound), also have that childish need to draw other kinds of attention to themselves, showing off a Rolex, gold jewelery, etc, instead of going with the more stealth approach.

I am confused. Because I carry a gun, I must like to show off?

Wow. Well I don't wear any jewelry at all.

Furthermore, guard dogs will cause far more liability in a civil suit than a firearm. See how much your homeowners insurance goes up when you tell them you have a handgun in your house. It won't go up. Now tell them you have two dobermans. If they will even insure you, you'll take a substantial hit.

As other mentioned before, suppose I was interested in robbing a house. I carry a gun for protection, like you, not all of crooks want the hassle of a murder rap. In the unarmed area I rob, hopefully when nobody is home and leave. Compare that to the TX mentality, instead of being surprised by some home owner hiding and then shooting me I would rather just watch them for a while from outside, wait until they exit the bathroom in just a towel, and shoot them in the head immediately, then take the money. Adjustments are made for the environment, just like when cops just started wearing bullet proof vests, all of a sudden everyone is aiming for your head, not your belly.

Yes, because criminals are crack marksmen, and can make headshots while on the move and while their target is moving, and returning fire.

You can make up situations all you want, but criminals have repeatedly affirmed that they will avoid a target if they know their target might be armed.

Furthermore, how did the criminal get into the house without my knowledge? If I'm home, I'm likely to hear a door open or a window break.

And what do you believe will be the end result if you kill a gang member? Hero or dead hero?

So I should just let the gang member kill me first?

No thanks...

Where do you get this stuff? Do you realize the level of cognitive dissonance in your post?

[aristide1]

Given how often a police officer has to pull out his gun, which is then met by a far larger weapon, I wonder about the validity of your claim.

Ah, I see. Because "big gun" = dead police officer. Unfortunately, police officers have carried long guns, shotguns and rifles that is, since policemen rode horseback. And the advantage goes to the person who has the better training, not the person with the bigger gun.

Sometimes, and don't be so one dimensional, anyone could pull a gun and be met with a bigger gun, or more guns. And maybe the wife would prefer you not be part of a massacre, on either side, justified or otherwise.

A pair of dobermans would work just as well, and they don't have drunken arguments, egos to bruise, and in general a better aim.
But I suspect that a lot of "men" who need to show off that weapon, in whatever form you please(sight or sound), also have that childish need to draw other kinds of attention to themselves, showing off a Rolex, gold jewelery, etc, instead of going with the more stealth approach.

I am confused. Because I carry a gun, I must like to show off?
Wow. Well I don't wear any jewelry at all.

And you didn't read the prior post either. So why is that my problem?

[Furthermore, guard dogs will cause far more liability in a civil suit than a firearm. See how much your homeowners insurance goes up when you tell them you have a handgun in your house. It won't go up. Now tell them you have two dobermans. If they will even insure you, you'll take a substantial hit.

And still no drunks to worry about or bruised egos. I wonder what the rates in TX are. Not to mention the lack of accidental shootings. Ooops. In TX road rage idiots waive their pistol permits at the other driver, as told to me by a native when I visited. And they were probably the more reasonable ones.

As other mentioned before, suppose I was interested in robbing a house. I carry a gun for protection, like you, not all of crooks want the hassle of a murder rap. In the unarmed area I rob, hopefully when nobody is home and leave. Compare that to the TX mentality, instead of being surprised by some home owner hiding and then shooting me I would rather just watch them for a while from outside, wait until they exit the bathroom in just a towel, and shoot them in the head immediately, then take the money. Adjustments are made for the environment, just like when cops just started wearing bullet proof vests, all of a sudden everyone is aiming for your head, not your belly.

Yes, because criminals are crack marksmen, and can make headshots while on the move and while their target is moving, and returning fire.

And I recall that guy who's was fired upon 40+ times by NYPD and was hit like 9 times.

You can make up situations all you want, but criminals have repeatedly affirmed that they will avoid a target if they know their target might be armed.

Furthermore, how did the criminal get into the house without my knowledge? If I'm home, I'm likely to hear a door open or a window break.

You're the one who said "if" you're home, you figure it out.

And what do you believe will be the end result if you kill a gang member? Hero or dead hero?

So I should just let the gang member kill me first?

No thanks...

Can you possible think in more than one dimension or is everything in your world totally black or white? Your remarks pretty much proves you couldn't understand the answer if it was presented.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you realize the level of cognitive dissonance in your post?

I did realize you passed up addressing the part about shooting the owner in the head before entering while he was coming out of the bathroom. And in case you didn't bother noticing, I am not the one who walked around with the gun pretending I have all the answers, I merely pointed out existing holes in your kind of theories that even our president would notice. I also have seen other signs of real intelligence from your side; the 60 Minutes special that showed the NRA trying to explain how teflon coated bullets could be used for hunting, but that was a long time ago.

But hey if you want to live in a place where everyone is armed go right ahead, if you call that living. Most would probably call it something else, which again requires a larger focus than the one you displayed here.

[laserred]

In TX road rage idiots waive their pistol permits at the other driver, as told to me by a native when I visited. And they were probably the more reasonable ones.

Hmm, they must have been "native" to somewhere south of the Big River, because you don't need a "pistol permit" in Texas.

that it is legal to transport a handgun in your motor vehicle for personal protection without a Concealed Handgun License (CHL), provided you are eligible to possess the firearm under state and federal law, you are not a member of a criminal street gang, and you are not committing any criminal activity at the time (other than a traffic violation).

You're freely allowed to carry a weapon. Since you seem to be good at telling stories, maybe AT&T can get you to replace that boring guy in their commercials slamming Comcast...

[aristide1]

Here's a shining example of the great aim 87GN was talkaing about:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29503

More fun facts about guns:

In 1984, the last year for which the National Center for Health Statistics has figures, there were 1,668 unintentional firearms deaths in the United States, of which 287 were children under 15 years of age.

Source:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A96E948260

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)


Source:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUT ... NSTAT.html

Boy, I feel safer already!
Just look at all the third world drug infested countries we beat out.
USA #1!

[Bluefront]

The old lady who lived alone across the street from me, always slept in her down-stairs basement bedroom. One night she heard glass break and foot-steps upstairs. She walked upstairs to investigate.....and the burglar scrambled back out the window. Her pistol was in an upstairs locked drawer.

She got lucky....and was un-harmed. Had the gun been in her hand when she confronted the burglar, she would have stood a chance, had the guy been more aggressive. After that, she slept with the gun by her side, and slept safer.

The bleeding-hearts among us will blame the old woman for acting stupid by walking upstairs.....right.

[laserred]

In 1984, the last year for which the National Center for Health Statistics has figures

See, aristide, this is the perfect example of what I was talking about when I said you gun haters were just like the Bush administration: sure, you'll use "statistics", but manipulate, twist, and ignore until you're satisfied. The NCHS only has statistics up to 1984? Did they all get beamed up by little green men in the ensuing TWENTY FOUR YEAR GAP? C'mon, use something better. Even the CDC has statistics up to 2005...

Firearms Death Rate between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)

Again, is it me, or did you just "quote" a source that said the last data was 1984, then you expect me to believe "new" data that is still 13-18 years old?

Just look at all the third world drug infested countries we beat out.

Really? Where's Colombia? Where's Afghanistan? Where's some of the other third world countries you stereotype into being drug infested? Again, you ignore what you don't like and distort what loosely resembles your argument... hang it up. Debate class was not your calling.

[aristide1]

Hey thats all Google produced, sue me.

Pretend accidents dont happen. Who cares?

[aristide1]

I said you gun haters were just like the Bush administration: sure, you'll use "statistics", but manipulate, twist, and ignore until you're satisfied. The NCHS only has statistics up to 1984? Did they all get beamed up by little green men in the ensuing TWENTY FOUR YEAR GAP? C'mon, use something better. Even the CDC has statistics up to 2005...

And what's the reason you didn't post them? Do they not lend themselves to your side of the argument? Oooo, upper case latters, that certainly provides solid evidence for that 24 year gap on the table.

Again, is it me, or did you just "quote" a source that said the last data was 1984, then you expect me to believe "new" data that is still 13-18 years old?

The simply ability to be able to think clarifies that the comment "last data was 1984", could have well have been in written in like 1987, but nice try at Limbaughing common sense. If you have something more substantial to lock onto, wouldn't have you used it?

Really? Where's Colombia? Where's Afghanistan? Where's some of the other third world countries you stereotype into being drug infested? Again, you ignore what you don't like and distort what loosely resembles your argument... hang it up. Debate class was not your calling.

This is the most laughable of your comments. A thinking person would start by assumning that those countries didn't even have high enough numbers to make it to the top of the list, which is why USA #1. You're the one running fast and loose with facts, or "manipulate, twist, and ignore", as you put it. You assume that the those drug infested countries are worse, using that to make your stand, and providing absolutely nothing to back it up. So tell us again who's pretending to be right? Yes yes, the people who worked at providing that chart at that time, they all got out of bed, made a things to do list, and swore an oath to the devil to make the US look bad. That's your logic. Got paranoia?

And I don't hate guns. They are a tool required at times. And guns don't create dumb people.......

[Erssa]

Here's a shining example of the great aim 87GN was talkaing about:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29503

More fun facts about guns:

I hope you do realize that theonion is a comedy site with fake news? I might have though you meant this as a sarcastic remark, but can't be sure when you followed up with "more facts".

[87GN]

Given how often a police officer has to pull out his gun, which is then met by a far larger weapon, I wonder about the validity of your claim.

Ah, I see. Because "big gun" = dead police officer. Unfortunately, police officers have carried long guns, shotguns and rifles that is, since policemen rode horseback. And the advantage goes to the person who has the better training, not the person with the bigger gun.

Sometimes, and don't be so one dimensional, anyone could pull a gun and be met with a bigger gun, or more guns. And maybe the wife would prefer you not be part of a massacre, on either side, justified or otherwise.

Huh?

Do you understand the concept of training?

I could have a rocket launcher and if I came up against Jeff Cooper who had a .380 I'd be SOL.

A pair of dobermans would work just as well, and they don't have drunken arguments, egos to bruise, and in general a better aim.
But I suspect that a lot of "men" who need to show off that weapon, in whatever form you please(sight or sound), also have that childish need to draw other kinds of attention to themselves, showing off a Rolex, gold jewelery, etc, instead of going with the more stealth approach.

I am confused. Because I carry a gun, I must like to show off?
Wow. Well I don't wear any jewelry at all.

And you didn't read the prior post either. So why is that my problem?

I don't know. Whose problem is it then?

[Furthermore, guard dogs will cause far more liability in a civil suit than a firearm. See how much your homeowners insurance goes up when you tell them you have a handgun in your house. It won't go up. Now tell them you have two dobermans. If they will even insure you, you'll take a substantial hit.

And still no drunks to worry about or bruised egos. I wonder what the rates in TX are. Not to mention the lack of accidental shootings. Ooops. In TX road rage idiots waive their pistol permits at the other driver, as told to me by a native when I visited. And they were probably the more reasonable ones.

Brandishing a firearm or informing someone you have a gun as a threat is illegal, so whoever told you that is FOS.

What is this "Drunk" thing? I could care less about a bruised ego if I'm still going to wake up the next morning. And I don't personally know any gun owner who mixes shooting and drinking.

As other mentioned before, suppose I was interested in robbing a house. I carry a gun for protection, like you, not all of crooks want the hassle of a murder rap. In the unarmed area I rob, hopefully when nobody is home and leave. Compare that to the TX mentality, instead of being surprised by some home owner hiding and then shooting me I would rather just watch them for a while from outside, wait until they exit the bathroom in just a towel, and shoot them in the head immediately, then take the money. Adjustments are made for the environment, just like when cops just started wearing bullet proof vests, all of a sudden everyone is aiming for your head, not your belly.

Yes, because criminals are crack marksmen, and can make headshots while on the move and while their target is moving, and returning fire.

And I recall that guy who's was fired upon 40+ times by NYPD and was hit like 9 times.

Exactly my point, it is hard enough for "the professionals" to hit something, what makes you think a criminal is better?

You can make up situations all you want, but criminals have repeatedly affirmed that they will avoid a target if they know their target might be armed.

Furthermore, how did the criminal get into the house without my knowledge? If I'm home, I'm likely to hear a door open or a window break.

You're the one who said "if" you're home, you figure it out.

You said

instead of being surprised by some home owner hiding and then shooting me I would rather just watch them for a while from outside, wait until they exit the bathroom in just a towel, and shoot them in the head immediately

Suggesting entry into the house after the homeowner entered, while the homeowner was in the home. So no, YOU proposed that scenario.

And what do you believe will be the end result if you kill a gang member? Hero or dead hero?

So I should just let the gang member kill me first?

No thanks...

Can you possible think in more than one dimension or is everything in your world totally black or white? Your remarks pretty much proves you couldn't understand the answer if it was presented.

This is not meant as an insult at all, but I know English is not your first language. Whatever your first language is, you are most likely better at it than I, but we are having a communication issue here because I am having a hard time understanding your intent/meaning.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you realize the level of cognitive dissonance in your post?

I did realize you passed up addressing the part about shooting the owner in the head before entering while he was coming out of the bathroom. And in case you didn't bother noticing, I am not the one who walked around with the gun pretending I have all the answers, I merely pointed out existing holes in your kind of theories that even our president would notice. I also have seen other signs of real intelligence from your side; the 60 Minutes special that showed the NRA trying to explain how teflon coated bullets could be used for hunting, but that was a long time ago.

But hey if you want to live in a place where everyone is armed go right ahead, if you call that living. Most would probably call it something else, which again requires a larger focus than the one you displayed here.

I did address that point but I don't think you understood me.

I think teflon coated bullets are dumb. Does that make you happy?

[87GN]

Here's a shining example of the great aim 87GN was talkaing about:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29503

More fun facts about guns:

In 1984, the last year for which the National Center for Health Statistics has figures, there were 1,668 unintentional firearms deaths in the United States, of which 287 were children under 15 years of age.

Source:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A96E948260

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)


Source:
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUT ... NSTAT.html

Boy, I feel safer already!
Just look at all the third world drug infested countries we beat out.
USA #1!

The Onion as a reference in a serious discussion?

I feel embarrassed to have treated you as an intellectual equal so far.

Why don't you go back about 7 pages and read forward, we discussed those statistics already.

[laserred]

And what's the reason you didn't post them? Do they not lend themselves to your side of the argument? Oooo, upper case latters, that certainly provides solid evidence for that 24 year gap on the table.

I didn't post any "statistics" because your logic is flawed, it was a non-argument to begin, and as Ron White so eloquently put it, "Ya can't fix stoopid."

The simply ability to be able to think clarifies that the comment "last data was 1984", could have well have been in written in like 1987, but nice try at Limbaughing common sense. If you have something more substantial [to lock onto, wouldn't have you used it?

Simply ability, huh? Your post about that makes no sense when viewed as an answer to my question. I don't give a crap if it was written in 2003, you're still trying to use 24 year old data as valid in the present tense. Again, see Ron White.

This is the most laughable of your comments. A thinking person would start by assumning that those countries didn't even have high enough numbers to make it to the top of the list, which is why USA #1. You're the one running fast and loose with facts, or "manipulate, twist, and ignore", as you put it. You assume that the those drug infested countries are worse, using that to make your stand, and providing absolutely nothing to back it up. So tell us again who's pretending to be right? Yes yes, the people who worked at providing that chart at that time, they all got out of bed, made a things to do list, and swore an oath to the devil to make the US look bad. That's your logic. Got paranoia?

You're the one who called all third world countries drug infested, see:

Boy, I feel safer already!
Just look at all the third world drug infested countries we beat out.
USA #1!

I said I didn't see Colombia or Afghanistan on there because hmm, NONE of the countries that are drug infested are on there. See that little gem, "data for Selected Countries" ? This gives you the title of either illiterate or Bush's last PR hope. You pick. Do you think it's because Colombia and Afghanistan have less killing than those other countries? I think it's because nobody's stupid enough or lives long enough to investigate and count the bodies. You must not read much international news, eh?

And guns don't create dumb people.......

So then dumb people create guns? WTF was your logic in that statement?

[aristide1]

I don't give a crap if it was written in 2003, you're still trying to use 24 year old data as valid in the present tense

If newer data is such a big concern you're more than welcome to present some. From here, those that died 24 years ago are just as dead now as they were then. If you think other countries do a better job of killing their own, by all means post such info. The 'Net is not a one way street, back up your claim, doesn't bother me in the least.

Or is the newer data even more damning? Hmmmm. What's the hold up if I'm so off base?

Just look at all the third world drug infested countries we beat out.

This does not say all the third world countries are drug infested, you're emphasis is on the wrong word. We also beat out all the third world countries that aren't drug infested.

Exactly my point, it is hard enough for "the professionals" to hit something, what makes you think a criminal is better?

I don't understand why this is favorable to you. Cops are shooting in high stress situations, and they miss occasionally because they are human. Civilian guns owners may or may not have as much training, and if you don't even need a permit do you need any training at all? So how many accidental shootings and bystanders at a crime scene are taken out by "gun owners"?

Seems if you live in a city with a high murder, robbery, or rape rate and have a gun, you still live in a city with the same rates. If you want real security why live there in the first place?

See that little gem, "data for Selected Countries" ? This gives you the title of either illiterate or Bush's last PR hope. You pick.

Sorry I Bushed you, I saw only what I wanted to see here and ran with it. Note to self - Don't post when half asleep. My apologies on this.

But you are right, there's a communication problem here. I don't give a rat's ass if you own a gun or not. If you choose to live in a place where everyone is carrying and you call that living that's your opinion. The majority of the world would not agree.

and as Ron White so eloquently put it, "Ya can't fix stoopid."

Gun owners and non-gun owners alike. You also can't fix dead.

[spookmineer]

I don't want to pick a side in this discussion (although I have one) but all I can say is...

I'm glad I don't live in the USA.

[klankymen]

I don't want to pick a side in this discussion (although I have one) but all I can say is...

I'm glad I don't live in the USA.

I was starting to think the same thing in the last couple pages....

[Bluefront]

I really don't think you can say there are two sides to the murder problem, or the crime problem, in the USA. Almost nobody wants to see more murders....after-all, anybody could be affected, and everybody would benefit from fewer murders.

The problem is the methods used to prevent murders. Obviously, what has been used to prevent, to deter murders, has not been working very well for quite a while in the USA. So.....if anyone wants to see a significant drop in the murder rates, changes are in order.

Looking at capital punishment.....it was used only 42 times in 2007, in the USA, as opposed to the thousands of murders here. Until CP is increased drastically in the USA, there's no real way to determine how effective it might be as a deterrent. Statistics from other countries mean very little.

But there are other ways to prevent/deter murders, very few of which are being used. We send convicted murderers to prison...that's about it. Rob a bank with a gun, steal a car three times in some states, murder your wife and three kids and kill a bunch of neighbors........all carry about the same penalty. That's the problem, one that could be fixed.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello Carl,

You seem to be greatly over-simplifying things: not all killings are the same. There are premeditated, extremely violent, spontaneous, unintentional, accidental, random -- and all of these carry different punishments, as they should.

Same point about other crimes -- then length of the prison sentence and the possibility of parole, etc., is something you are glossing over. Simply saying someone got a prison sentence for bribery and someone else got a prison sentence for manslaughter, makes them the same punishment -- is just silly.

Punishment is hardly the only way to prevent crime. Removing weapons from society would go a long way to reducing crime. Minimizing the motivations for crimes is another: the more people who are able to succeed in life and have some hope to continue to better themselves reduce the number of potential criminals. If we help people to come out of poverty -- and frankly if we change attitudes about consumerism (things don't make you happy), then this is an extremely cost effective way to avoid crime way before it happens.

Our world is extremely complicated, as is the justice system -- so please do not presume to think that you have the ultimate answer. You most definitely do not, as you have demonstrated with your simplistic posts.

[Bluefront]

Neil....you can get "life" for murder, for armed robbery, and in the states that have mandatory life for three felony convictions. These all have different levels of seriousness.... but the same punishment.

All along, tougher punishments were handed down for more serious crimes.....the basis for our judicial system. But now the most serious punishment, CP, has almost been eliminated......and the punishment for less serious crime has been increased. The result....the prison population has gone through the roof.

Social "reform" like you suggest has been attempted ever since Johnson's "Great Society"...... without any drop in the prison population, and with ever-increasing crime.

I only suggest one way to lower the murder rate by increasing CP. There are other ways that involve punishment. What's happening right now to stop murders.....isn't working.

[neon joe]

I only suggest one way to lower the murder rate by increasing CP. There are other ways that involve punishment. What's happening right now to stop murders.....isn't working.

Bluefront,
Do you really think that someone about to commit murder, or any other serious crime, is really considering the punishment?

Would you steal, if the punishment was less severe? Would you beat someone up? Would you kill someone?

If not, why do you think other people would be?

[aristide1]

I really don't think ...

Finally something we can all agree on.

That and the effectiveness of CP being a deterrent. Notice how TX no longer has to kill anybody anymore. That BF logic sure paid off.

[Bluefront]

neon joe.....unlike the murder-apologists that crawl out of the wood-work whenever the subject of CP is mentioned, I think about the subject of murder daily, ever since my best friend was murdered.

Morons make light of the subject of murder, make jokes, try to shift the blame. I don't......and when/if murder affects someone personally, he won't either. Murder doesn't always happen to the other guy.....to the other guy's friends and relatives.