VA Tech Shooting

[Shr3d]

Ok i've not seen any reason to lock this thread oranything but i've noticed the thread going a little askew at times and on a few occasions has degenerated into some insult flinging. I'm happy to keep this thread open since a serious discussion is going on but can we make sure we keep it that way please?

Steal my word would you?

To the copyright cave!

[Persol]

edit: internet goofed

[Persol]

edit: internet goofed... triple post ftl

[Persol]

Where exactly do you get all these numbers from ?

The US homicide rates (posted by you I think):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

Populations (cia factbooks):
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook

WWII per capita death rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherland ... rld_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

It would be refreshing for you to do your own research instead of just saying I'm wrong...

[Sorrow]

it could be kind of refreshing for you to just shut up about WW II since whatever the fuck happened isn't really relevant to what we were discussing.
We won't know if guns would've helped but what I do know is that guns aren't helping you.

you said you own one right? doesn't make you a little biased? hmm?

might I add that your conclusions are unreasonable and stupid too btw, so 100,000 people died, they did so because they had no guns.
6 million jews died, and what if we'd have given them guns? they would've survived etc. ? yeah my ass.

stick those guns where daylight won't shine please.

[Persol]

it could be kind of refreshing for you to just shut up about WW II since whatever the fuck happened isn't really relevant to what we were discussing.

Actually it is, because the argument was that having guns provided for societies security. You said I was wrong, then asked for the numbers. Why did you ask for the numbers if it doesn't apply?

And here are the calculations for you, even though you just declared by fiat that defense isn't a good reason for having a gun, even though you can't back it up.
France WWII death rate - 1 in 74 (41700k/562k)
Netherlands WWII death rate - 1 in 42 (8729k/205k)

US gun homicide rate (29844k/10k) 1 in 28000 per year

The US homicide rate in the Netherlands would have cause 300 deaths a year (8729k/28k). More of your people were killed in WWII than would have been killed in 683 years of guns being as prevalent and misused as the US. (205k/300)

Is your feeling of 'being safer' (when the chances of being shot and killed in the US are extremely low for non-criminals) worth your country men not being able to defend themselves? Why do you think France, were more fighting/bombing took place, fared so much better?

Don't just suddenly declare 'it wouldnt have helped', support your case. YOU held your country up as an example of how safe a nation is without guns. I'm pointing out that there is a huge drawback which you are completely ignoring.

[Sorrow]

WE aren't AT A TIME OF WAR.
if you did take a look at those notes there are alot of countries in there who lost even more civilians, and wtf, france + civilians = no guns.
lots of people starved to death here too.
it was a crappy time, but in a CIVILIZED world yeah, we don't need all those guns and crap, clearly, you do.
but then again that's the US.

[Persol]

WE aren't AT A TIME OF WAR.

Did you miss the part were your country said that before WWII, and then was unable to get guns when they were attacked?

if you did take a look at those notes there are alot of countries in there who lost even more civilians

Because they are bigger countries. That's why percentages are such useful things. A city of 10 people isn't safer than a city of 100 if 10 people get killed in each city.

and wtf, france + civilians = no guns.

Completely incorrect. France's gun laws were closer to the US's... just more strict on who can purchase.

So, care to actually state some facts/logic?

[Sathor]

Perhaps, because of the guns, US is at war all the time, so you can compare those numbers

[Persol]

Perhaps, because of the guns, US is at war all the time, so you can compare those numbers

Yeah, that's BS. England is also at war all the time, and they don't have all the guns.

Plus, you fail on making any connection whatsoever between civilians having guns at home and our military attacking countries overseas.

[Sathor]

And you fail to notice the missing connection between the homocide rate in your country and the people killed during WWII in the Netherlands.

[Persol]

And you fail to notice the missing connection between the homocide rate in your country and the people killed during WWII in the Netherlands.

Not just my country, but france and other countries that were armed.

I'm using my country as a worst case for how dangerous the dutch would be with guns. Realistically, I'd expect they'd be more responsible with guns, as they are more responsible than americans with other weapons.

Other European countries, who were all armed, had FAR fewer casualties per capita and far more effective resistances.

The Netherlands (who was little more than a footnote in Germany's attack plans) had such huge casualties partly due to an almost complete inability to defend itself and form a resistance. The resistance formed, while noble, wasn't very effective except for hiding people.

Comparing the upside of high gun ownership (the ability to prevent a government from cleansing the population or implementing slave labor or whatever) versus the downside of low gun ownership (higher homicide rate in peace time) is a very important connection.

The very important connection is that, even if guns increase your death rate per year by 300 people, it will help the next time an event like WWII happens that has the potential to kill hundreds of thousands in your country.

[Sorrow]

next time an event like WWII happens

Next time that happens we'll be bombed by either your planes, or nuked by you.
I don't see a bunch of handguns making any difference.

[Persol]

Next time that happens we'll be bombed by either your planes, or nuked by you.
I don't see a bunch of handguns making any difference.

It is sad that your 'discussion' is simply insults and innuendo.

Again, tell Iraq that guns are worthless cause we will just nuke them. Completely bombing a place is worthless. At some point, troops are put on the ground. When that happens you have no choice but to surrender, because you have no weapons. The reason Iraq's people are not surrendering is different than the reason the Netherlands would have... but the point is that they are able to resist, while your country is not.

But hey, if you think that
a) your country will not be attacked in the next 600 years or
b) any attack will nuke all your citizens
then best of luck with option a.

Since you aren't actually willing to talk factually or logically, I think my discussion with you is done.

[Sathor]

Completely bombing a place is worthless.

Yeah, would not be much oil left if Iraq was bombed completely ...

Edit:

I am out of the discussion. I just feel confirmed in my opinion about a few Americans.