pandarilla Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I did answer the question. Would you like me to explain my answer for you? I will anyway: In a heated domestic debate there are a number of weapons within a house that a person COULD use to kill the source of their anger. Not only is this possible it HAS happened on numerous occasions. It does not justify banning the object used. Guns have non-violent purposes too, I think you'll find. Guns have non-violent purposes? I know i peel my bananas with my glock but it takes a fucking age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/#note-99-22 Here you go, have fun. Cheers.. One in three people in the U.S. know someone who has been shot.1 On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.2 Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.3 The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.4 A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.5 Sources: 1Goss, Kristin, “Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control,” Princeton University Press, 2006. p. 2 2The Brady Campaign averaged the most recent three years of data from death certificates (2008-2010) and estimates of emergency room admissions (2009-2011) available via CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control’s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html. Data retrieved 12/28/12. 3The Brady Campaign averaged the most recent three years of data from death certificates (2008-2010) and estimates of emergency room admissions (2009-2011) available via CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control’s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html. Data retrieved 12/28/12. 4Richardson, Erin G., and David Hemenway, “Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High-Income Countries, 2003,” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, published online ahead of print, June 2010 5Kellermann, Arthur L.MD, MPH, et al. “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 45 (1998): 263-67 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 pandarilla, on 05 Feb 2015 - 23:12, said:Guns have non-violent purposes? Paperweight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Guns have non-violent purposes? I know i peel my bananas with my glock but it takes a fucking age. Would you like me to state those non-violent purposes for you? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Guns have non-violent purposes too, I think you'll find. To put alongside your collection of machetes and combat knives I suppose. Unless you mean target shooting, which you can easily do here just by joining a club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Self-evidently you would be wrong. The people responsible for crime statistics in the UK do not record a crime unless it has resulted in a conviction, skewing their figures. That's rubbish. Crimes are recorded on the day. Otherwise people wouldn't have crime numbers to give to insurance companies when they are burgled etc. I think you'll find the police officers record the crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 "One in three people in the U.S. know someone who has been shot.1 On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.2 Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.3 The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.4 A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense."What's your point, exactly?- How many more times is it likely to be used for non-criminal purposes?- Using total numbers is disingenuous when comparing countries with drastic differences in population- Right so we're bringing suicide into the debate now?- The US is not the only country amongst those 22 to have significantly more liberal gun laws than the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 That's rubbish. Crimes are recorded on the day. Otherwise people wouldn't have crime numbers to give to insurance companies when they are burgled etc. I think you'll find the police officers record the crimes. Fact check the source material. Until then, continue sounding like an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Fact check the source material. Until then, continue sounding like an idiot. As I used to work in the police I know exactly how crimes are recorded. Think about it. Insurance companies demand crime numbers in order to be assured they are not being conned. If crimes weren't recorded nobody who had an unsolved burglary, car theft would get a pay out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 To put alongside your collection of machetes and combat knives I suppose. Unless you mean target shooting, which you can easily do here just by joining a club. Well, yes, collection would indeed be a non-violent purpose. However there's more, I'll label the ones that come to mind: - Target shooting - Sports shooting - Collection - Hunting (potentially violent, depending on your views) But that's all irrelevant anyway, because as we've discussed you don't need a useful reason to own things in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Well, yes, collection would indeed be a non-violent purpose. However there's more, I'll label the ones that come to mind: - Target shooting - Sports shooting - Collection - Hunting (potentially violent, depending on your views) But that's all irrelevant anyway, because as we've discussed you don't need a useful reason to own things in our society. Then why don't we all own bazookas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 As I used to work in the police I know exactly how crimes are recorded. Think about it. Insurance companies demand crime numbers in order to be assured they are not being conned. If crimes weren't recorded nobody who had an unsolved burglary, car theft would get a pay out. If you genuinely worked for the police that's quite frightening indeed considering you're totally oblivious of this fact. That statistics the UK provides publicly for murder rates and various other crimes are skewed, as has been shown. Go read the source material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Then why don't we all own bazookas Alright, you can't criticize people for comparing knives to guns then yourself compare guns to bazookas in order to try and justify your stance. Make up your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Well, yes, collection would indeed be a non-violent purpose. However there's more, I'll label the ones that come to mind: - Target shooting - Sports shooting - Collection - Hunting (potentially violent, depending on your views) But that's all irrelevant anyway, because as we've discussed you don't need a useful reason to own things in our society. What is this collection thing you recent arrivals keep going on about? Is it an American thing? By the way you may have missed this being as you only arrived today: Firearm Access and Intimate Partner Homicide Compared to homes without guns, the presence of guns in the home is associated with a 3-fold increased homicide risk within the home. The risk connected to gun ownership increases to 8-fold when the offender is an intimate partner or relative of the victim and is 20 times higher when previous domestic violence exists. A study of risk factors for violent death of women in the home found that women living in homes with 1 or more guns were more than 3 times more likely to be killed in their homes. The same study concluded that women killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative were 7 times more likely to live in homes with 1 or more guns and 14 times more likely to have a history of prior domestic violence compared to women killed by non-intimate acquaintances. Family and intimate assaults with firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than nonfirearm assaults. This research suggests that limiting access to guns will result in less lethal family and intimate assaults. A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners revealed a 5-fold increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a firearm. In fact, Homicide risks were found to be 50% higher for female handgun purchasers in California compared with licensed drivers matched by sex, race, and age group. Among the women handgun purchasers who were murdered, 45% were killed by an intimate partner using a gun. In contrast, 20% of all women murdered in California during the study period were killed with a gun by an intimate partner. http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 If you genuinely worked for the police that's quite frightening indeed considering you're totally oblivious of this fact. That statistics the UK provides publicly for murder rates and various other crimes are skewed, as has been shown. Go read the source material. I am not saying crime figures are perfect but to say crimes are not recorded at all until convictions are in place is completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Alright, you can't criticize people for comparing knives to guns then yourself compare guns to bazookas in order to try and justify your stance. Make up your mind. I wouldn't compare them, I was using your logic. You said we don't need a reason or purpose to own things. So why not bazookas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I am not saying crime figures are perfect but to say crimes are not recorded at all until convictions are in place is completely wrong. Are you even reading what I'm saying? The figures PUBLICLY given for UK crime rates are completely skewed. The refuse to include figures for crimes in which offenders have not yet been convicted. So when someone quotes the UK murder rate (which is still lower than a country like Switzerland for example, despite all those guns) they are quoting a completely inaccurate figure which is actually higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Are you even reading what I'm saying? The figures PUBLICLY given for UK crime rates are completely skewed. The refuse to include figures for crimes in which offenders have not yet been convicted. So when someone quotes the UK murder rate (which is still lower than a country like Switzerland for example, despite all those guns) they are quoting a completely inaccurate figure which is actually higher. You stated crimes were not recorded. That is wrong. How the government presents them is another matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I wouldn't compare them, I was using your logic. You said we don't need a reason or purpose to own things. So why not bazookas? If you're going to ban guns because they can be used to cause harm then why not ban manually operated cars? People in urban areas have no use for them. Or more appropriately why not limit cars to a safer speed? As in they are produced specifically to not be capable of travelling at a speed greater than is considered safe by the government. Yes, let's get right on this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufc1980 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 You stated crimes were not recorded. That is wrong. How the government presents them is another matter Contextually it should have been obvious what I meant, assuming you read the previous comments. However if it wasn't, I apologize for misleading anyone with those comments. So we both are in agreement, the murder/general crime rate for the UK is higher than it's presented as, excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.