Man accidentally shoots self (in the butt) in NV theatre

[General Zod]

So your entire claim is that people will be violent with or without guns.

No. But you're a dipshit so I don't expect you to understand it even if I used mono-syllabic words.

Bullshit! Name a weapon that people commonly carry that is both equally deadly, as easy to carry, and as easy to use as a firearm. Then go ahead and show me where all the mass crimes with that weapon are. If it's really that complicated there should be something out there to muddy the water.

In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.

In England and Wales alone — discounting Scotland — there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.

By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.

In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.

In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).

In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

See? You can use statistics to prove anything.

[D.Turtle]

If it's properly holstered the risk of accidental discharge drops to nil. The idiot in the article didn't seem to have it properly holstered.

If it is not loaded or if it is not cocked, the risk of accidental discharge is nil. Hundreds of people each year die in the US because of unintentional discharges, with the number of injuries possibly a hundred times higher. Granted, a large number of that is through things like kids handling guns, but a not insignificant part of that is people thinking a gun isn't loaded (and cocked) when it is. You would have to show that the increased risk of injury and death by carrying guns cocked and locked is worth it.

In this study, for example, they find that roughly 20% of unintentional deaths through firearms could be prevented by having a loaded chamber indicator.

The problem isn't your reaction time, rather, it's the potential for brainfarts while operating under severe stress. Can you remember to cock your firearm when you're scared shitless and experiencing a massive adrenaline dump? Furthermore, can you muster up the muscle co-ordination to do so? Probably not, unless you've put in many hours of quality training. Anyone can draw, cock, and discharge a firearm at the range, it's a lot harder to do it when someone's charging at you with bad intentions.

Again, how likely is a scenario where that makes the difference?

Using the results from a widely spread (by gun enthusiasts) study from 1995, that alleged more defensive gun uses in cases of burglaries than there were burglaries with an armed person on the premises, and 200 thousand offenders being injured or killed every year through defensive gun use (right ...), has that 76% of people brandished or showed the gun, 58% verbally referred to the gun, 50% pointed the gun at the offender, 24% fired the gun (including warning shots), 16% fired the gun at the offender (trying to injure them), and 8% wounded or injured the offender. Or to choose another question; In 47% of cases the defender wasn't threatened or attacked, in 32% was threatened only, in 15% was attacked but not injured, and in 6% of the cases was attacked and injured.

So, using the results from this gun-use friendly study, there is a significant majority of cases in which there was more than enough time to be able to use an uncocked weapon just as well.

[Jub]

So your entire claim is that people will be violent with or without guns.

No. But you're a dipshit so I don't expect you to understand it even if I used mono-syllabic words.

Then by all means, clearly state your claim so I can address it. I'm giving you the mic, so please tell me exactly what you're trying to accomplish here.

Bullshit! Name a weapon that people commonly carry that is both equally deadly, as easy to carry, and as easy to use as a firearm. Then go ahead and show me where all the mass crimes with that weapon are. If it's really that complicated there should be something out there to muddy the water.

In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.

In England and Wales alone — discounting Scotland — there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.

By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.

In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.

In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).

In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

See? You can use statistics to prove anything.

Those stats as posted are worthless unless you include knife crime statistics for the US. The reason they are useless is that when you don't have a gun you're going to be forced to use something else to hurt people, maybe a knife even. So why don't you get some stats that mean something.

Way to miss the point, a knife is not nearly as deadly as a gun in the hands of an average person. Also, please show that you can commit mass killings with a knife the way you can with a gun.

EDIT: Please note for the record that Zod is stupid enough to state that a knife is just as deadly as a gun.

[General Zod]

Those stats as posted are worthless unless you include knife crime statistics for the US. The reason they are useless is that when you don't have a gun you're going to be forced to use something else to hurt people, maybe a knife even. So why don't you get some stats that mean something.

Were you dropped on the head as a child? Serious question here.

Way to miss the point, a knife is not nearly as deadly as a gun in the hands of an average person. Then go ahead and show me where all the mass crimes with that weapon are. If it's really that complicated there should be something out there to muddy the water.

Did you know the hijackings of 9/11 were accomplished using box cutters?

Please note for the record that Zod is stupid enough to state that a knife is just as deadly as a gun.

That's not what I'm saying, but you're a lying dipshit so I don't expect anything less.

[Jub]

Way to miss the point, a knife is not nearly as deadly as a gun in the hands of an average person. Then go ahead and show me where all the mass crimes with that weapon are. If it's really that complicated there should be something out there to muddy the water.

Did you know the hijackings of 9/11 were accomplished using box cutters?

I'm going to highlight the term you missed when answering my question. Then I'm going to let you try again.

Please note for the record that Zod is stupid enough to state that a knife is just as deadly as a gun.

That's not what I'm saying, but you're a lying dipshit so I don't expect anything less.

I invited you to post a weapon that is as easy to use, easy to carry, and easy to kill with as a gun. You responded by bringing up knife crime.

You've also repeatedly ignored requests to clearly state your position. Now state your position or get the fuck out.

[General Zod]

But just for laughs let's take a look at the numbers. Of course just because firearms accounted for more than half doesn't mean the murder rate would be reduced by half whatsoever if you got rid of them, that's poor logic.

Code: Select all

Homicides by Weapon Used,  2000-2008

Handguns 	65,581 	51%
Rifles 	3,791 	3%
Shotguns 	4,356 	3%
Other firearm not specified or type unknown 	820 	1%
Firearms, type not stated 	11,564 	9%
Firearm subtotals 	86,112 	66%

	
	
Knives or cutting instruments 	16,547 	13%
Blunt Objects 	5,782 	4%
Personal Weapons 	8,220 	6%
Poison 	106 	0%
Explosives 	43 	0%
Fire 	1,093 	1%
Narcotics 	408 	0%
Drowning 	150 	0%
Strangulation 	1,281 	1%
Asphyxiation 	948 	1%
All other 	9,051 	7%
All other weapons subtotals 	43,629 	34%

	
	
Total, all types: 	129,741 	100%

[General Zod]

I invited you to post a weapon that is as easy to use, easy to carry, and easy to kill with as a gun. You responded by bringing up knife crime.

You've also repeatedly ignored requests to clearly state your position. Now state your position or get the fuck out.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my point about Sweden. But you're a dishonest sack of shit so I really don't expect anything.

[Jub]

But just for laughs let's take a look at the numbers. Of course just because firearms accounted for more than half doesn't mean the murder rate would be reduced by half whatsoever if you got rid of them, that's poor logic.

Code: Select all

Homicides by Weapon Used,  2000-2008

Handguns 	65,581 	51%
Rifles 	3,791 	3%
Shotguns 	4,356 	3%
Other firearm not specified or type unknown 	820 	1%
Firearms, type not stated 	11,564 	9%
Firearm subtotals 	86,112 	66%

	
	
Knives or cutting instruments 	16,547 	13%
Blunt Objects 	5,782 	4%
Personal Weapons 	8,220 	6%
Poison 	106 	0%
Explosives 	43 	0%
Fire 	1,093 	1%
Narcotics 	408 	0%
Drowning 	150 	0%
Strangulation 	1,281 	1%
Asphyxiation 	948 	1%
All other 	9,051 	7%
All other weapons subtotals 	43,629 	34%

	
	
Total, all types: 	129,741 	100%

So guns account for 66% of all homocide cases. I think that makes a pretty telling case for guns being the most dangerous weapon most people will ever have access to. It's also telling that it's the weapon of choice for killing people with world wide. Thus, simply by being the best thing to kill people with, guns make life less safe when people have them. Case closed.

I invited you to post a weapon that is as easy to use, easy to carry, and easy to kill with as a gun. You responded by bringing up knife crime.

You've also repeatedly ignored requests to clearly state your position. Now state your position or get the fuck out.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my point about Sweden. But you're a dishonest sack of shit so I really don't expect anything.

Actually I did answer that point. I answered it by pointing out the fact that it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Just because you can be reasonably safe while carrying a weapon, doesn't mean that you aren't safer not carrying a weapon.

EDIT: Changed some phrasing around that addressed the stats Zod posted.

[General Zod]

So guns account for 66% of all homocide cases. I think that makes a pretty telling case for guns being the most dangerous weapon most people will ever have access to. It's also telling that if you ask most people to kill somebody that they'll take a gun over a knife.

I think Zod just proved that guns, simply by being the best thing to kill people with, make life less safe when people have them. This isn't even taking into account gun accidents.

Actually I did answer that point. I answered it by pointing out the fact that it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Okay, so you were dropped on the head as a child. Probably fed paint chips too.

PS - You can't just dismiss a point by saying it's "irrelevant". You have to explain "WHY" it's irrelevant.

[Jub]

Okay, so you were dropped on the head as a child. Probably fed paint chips too.

PS - You can't just dismiss a point by saying it's "irrelevant". You have to explain "WHY" it's irrelevant.

Just because one nation of people that carry weapons, is safer than another nation that carries weapons, doesn't mean that carry weapons is safer than not carrying them. It's simple logic.

Also, please, go ahead and state exactly what your position on this topic is.

Mine is rather clearly that carrying weapons is less safe than not carrying weapons.

[General Zod]

Okay, so you were dropped on the head as a child. Probably fed paint chips too.

PS - You can't just dismiss a point by saying it's "irrelevant". You have to explain "WHY" it's irrelevant.

Just because one nation of people that carry weapons, is safer than another nation that carries weapons, doesn't mean that carry weapons is safer than not carrying them. It's simple logic.

Also, please, go ahead and state exactly what your position on this topic is.

Mine is rather clearly that carrying weapons is less safe than not carrying weapons.

The fact is, that when you remove guns from the equation deaths from violent crime drop.

Don't tell me you've forgotten this claim already? Please do back up your claims with evidence.

[Flagg]

Mine is rather clearly that carrying weapons is less safe than not carrying weapons.

Have you ever heard of calculated risk, you mouthbreathing fucktard?

[Lancer]

Mine is rather clearly that carrying weapons is less safe than not carrying weapons.

Are you also in favor of a ban on automobiles, given the existence of automobile accidents? I ask, as the black and white scenario you're attempting to reduce this argument down to is exactly the same.

[Jub]

The fact is, that when you remove guns from the equation deaths from violent crime drop.

Don't tell me you've forgotten this claim already? Please do back up your claims with evidence.

I will base the follow on the summary of recorded crime from 1898 to 2001/02 as found on this site.

In the decade before the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act, we get the following numbers:

1978: 532 Homicides*, 87,073 Violent Crimes, 0.61% deaths per violent crime
1979: 629 Homicides, 94,960 Violent Crimes, 0.66% deaths per violent crime
1980: 620 Homicides, 97,246 Violent Crimes, 0.63% deaths per violent crime
1981: 559 Homicides, 100,207 Violent Crimes, 0.55% deaths per violent crime
1982: 618 Homicides, 108,695 Violent Crimes, 0.57% deaths per violent crime
1983: 550 Homicides, 111,342 Violent Crimes, 0.49% deaths per violent crime
1984: 621 Homicides, 114,187 Violent Crimes, 0.54% deaths per violent crime
1985: 616 Homicides, 121,731 Violent Crimes, 0.51% deaths per violent crime
1986: 661 Homicides, 125,499 Violent Crimes, 0.53% deaths per violent crime
1987: 688 Homicides, 141,042 Violent Crimes, 0.49% deaths per violent crime

This gives an average of 0.558% deaths per violent crime.

In the decade after the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act we get the following numbers:

1989: 641 Homicides, 176,962 Violent Crimes, 0.36% deaths per violent crime
1990: 669 Homicides, 184,665Violent Crimes, 0.36% deaths per violent crime
1991: 725 Homicides, 190,339 Violent Crimes, 0.38% deaths per violent crime
1992: 687 Homicides, 201,777 Violent Crimes, 0.34% deaths per violent crime
1993: 670 Homicides, 205,102 Violent Crimes, 0.33% deaths per violent crime
1994: 726 Homicides, 218,354 Violent Crimes, 0.33% deaths per violent crime
1995: 745 Homicides, 212,588 Violent Crimes, 0.35% deaths per violent crime
1996: 679 Homicides, 239,340 Violent Crimes, 0.28% deaths per violent crime
1997: 739 Homicides, 250,822 Violent Crimes, 0.29% deaths per violent crime
1998: 748 Homicides, 256,070 Violent Crimes, 0.29% deaths per violent crime

This gives an average of 0.331% deaths per violent crime.

*Homicide includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide

Now as we can see deaths per violent crime drops drastically after the passing on this amendment even as murders and violent crime as a whole increased.

Mine is rather clearly that carrying weapons is less safe than not carrying weapons.

Have you ever heard of calculated risk, you mouthbreathing fucktard?

Do please show that you have a better chance of saving yourself from an attacker then you do of injuring yourself with your own weapon.

Mine is rather clearly that carrying weapons is less safe than not carrying weapons.

Are you also in favor of a ban on automobiles, given the existence of automobile accidents? I ask, as the black and white scenario you're attempting to reduce this argument down to is exactly the same.

They aren't really comparable. A car is used to transport people and goods to places and greatly increases the numbers of jobs a person can obtain. What added utility does carrying a loaded gun give you?

EDIT: Added average deaths per violent crimes for each decade.

[Flagg]

Mine is rather clearly that carrying weapons is less safe than not carrying weapons.

Have you ever heard of calculated risk, you mouthbreathing fucktard?

Do please show that you have a better chance of saving yourself from an attacker then you do of injuring yourself with your own weapon.

Why? Is that what I said you illiterate cuntspew? My point (I'm going to make it even though by your past history I assume it will go ignored) is that carrying a weapon is a calculated risk. But please, since you made the claim that you have a better chance of injuring yourself than fending off an attacker, prove it.

BTW, I'm not a pro-gun nut. I'm just watching you flail around like a retard and I'd like to see you knock it the fuck off.

[General Zod]

In the decade before the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act, we get the following numbers:

1978: 532 Homicides*, 87,073 Violent Crimes, 0.61% deaths per violent crime
1979: 629 Homicides, 94,960 Violent Crimes, 0.66% deaths per violent crime
1980: 620 Homicides, 97,246 Violent Crimes, 0.63% deaths per violent crime
1981: 559 Homicides, 100,207 Violent Crimes, 0.55% deaths per violent crime
1982: 618 Homicides, 108,695 Violent Crimes, 0.57% deaths per violent crime
1983: 550 Homicides, 111,342 Violent Crimes, 0.49% deaths per violent crime
1984: 621 Homicides, 114,187 Violent Crimes, 0.54% deaths per violent crime
1985: 616 Homicides, 121,731 Violent Crimes, 0.51% deaths per violent crime
1986: 661 Homicides, 125,499 Violent Crimes, 0.53% deaths per violent crime
1987: 688 Homicides, 141,042 Violent Crimes, 0.49% deaths per violent crime

In the decade after the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act we get the following numbers:

1989: 641 Homicides, 176,962 Violent Crimes, 0.36% deaths per violent crime
1990: 669 Homicides, 184,665Violent Crimes, 0.36% deaths per violent crime
1991: 725 Homicides, 190,339 Violent Crimes, 0.38% deaths per violent crime
1992: 687 Homicides, 201,777 Violent Crimes, 0.34% deaths per violent crime
1993: 670 Homicides, 205,102 Violent Crimes, 0.33% deaths per violent crime
1994: 726 Homicides, 218,354 Violent Crimes, 0.33% deaths per violent crime
1995: 745 Homicides, 212,588 Violent Crimes, 0.35% deaths per violent crime
1996: 679 Homicides, 239,340 Violent Crimes, 0.28% deaths per violent crime
1997: 739 Homicides, 250,822 Violent Crimes, 0.29% deaths per violent crime
1998: 748 Homicides, 256,070 Violent Crimes, 0.29% deaths per violent crime

*Homicide includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide

Now as we can see deaths per violent crime drops drastically after the passing on this amendment even as murders and violent crime as a whole increased.

Is the firearms act the only thing that led to a dropoff in violent crime or were there other factors that contributed? I think you're still trying to vastly oversimplify a complicated issue with no clear cut answer. Believe it or not the world does not operate on binary black and white conditions.

Still waiting on an explanation for Sweden.

[Flagg]

In the decade before the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act, we get the following numbers:

1978: 532 Homicides*, 87,073 Violent Crimes, 0.61% deaths per violent crime
1979: 629 Homicides, 94,960 Violent Crimes, 0.66% deaths per violent crime
1980: 620 Homicides, 97,246 Violent Crimes, 0.63% deaths per violent crime
1981: 559 Homicides, 100,207 Violent Crimes, 0.55% deaths per violent crime
1982: 618 Homicides, 108,695 Violent Crimes, 0.57% deaths per violent crime
1983: 550 Homicides, 111,342 Violent Crimes, 0.49% deaths per violent crime
1984: 621 Homicides, 114,187 Violent Crimes, 0.54% deaths per violent crime
1985: 616 Homicides, 121,731 Violent Crimes, 0.51% deaths per violent crime
1986: 661 Homicides, 125,499 Violent Crimes, 0.53% deaths per violent crime
1987: 688 Homicides, 141,042 Violent Crimes, 0.49% deaths per violent crime

In the decade after the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act we get the following numbers:

1989: 641 Homicides, 176,962 Violent Crimes, 0.36% deaths per violent crime
1990: 669 Homicides, 184,665Violent Crimes, 0.36% deaths per violent crime
1991: 725 Homicides, 190,339 Violent Crimes, 0.38% deaths per violent crime
1992: 687 Homicides, 201,777 Violent Crimes, 0.34% deaths per violent crime
1993: 670 Homicides, 205,102 Violent Crimes, 0.33% deaths per violent crime
1994: 726 Homicides, 218,354 Violent Crimes, 0.33% deaths per violent crime
1995: 745 Homicides, 212,588 Violent Crimes, 0.35% deaths per violent crime
1996: 679 Homicides, 239,340 Violent Crimes, 0.28% deaths per violent crime
1997: 739 Homicides, 250,822 Violent Crimes, 0.29% deaths per violent crime
1998: 748 Homicides, 256,070 Violent Crimes, 0.29% deaths per violent crime

*Homicide includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide

Now as we can see deaths per violent crime drops drastically after the passing on this amendment even as murders and violent crime as a whole increased.

Is the firearms act the only thing that led to a dropoff in violent crime or were there other factors that contributed? I think you're still trying to vastly oversimplify a complicated issue with no clear cut answer. Believe it or not the world does not operate on binary black and white conditions.

Still waiting on an explanation for Sweden.

Violent crime has also taken a nosedive in the US since the 80's, so...

[Jub]

Why? Is that what I said you illiterate cuntspew? My point (I'm going to make it even though by your past history I assume it will go ignored) is that carrying a weapon is a calculated risk. But please, since you made the claim that you have a better chance of injuring yourself than fending off an attacker, prove it.

BTW, I'm not a pro-gun nut. I'm just watching you flail around like a retard and I'd like to see you knock it the fuck off.

Flagg, outside of some action hero scenario where you get to draw before the attackers gets a bead on you with his own weapon, what do you expect to save yourself from with your carried weapon? What factors are you logically, as opposed to emotionally, taking into this risk assessment? Do you really fear violent crime enough that you feel the need to carry a loaded weapon on your person when out of the house?

I've also just shown how tighter gun laws reduce the number of deaths per violent crime, in a country that was never known for a high volume of gun crime.

In the decade before the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act, we get the following numbers:

1978: 532 Homicides*, 87,073 Violent Crimes, 0.61% deaths per violent crime
1979: 629 Homicides, 94,960 Violent Crimes, 0.66% deaths per violent crime
1980: 620 Homicides, 97,246 Violent Crimes, 0.63% deaths per violent crime
1981: 559 Homicides, 100,207 Violent Crimes, 0.55% deaths per violent crime
1982: 618 Homicides, 108,695 Violent Crimes, 0.57% deaths per violent crime
1983: 550 Homicides, 111,342 Violent Crimes, 0.49% deaths per violent crime
1984: 621 Homicides, 114,187 Violent Crimes, 0.54% deaths per violent crime
1985: 616 Homicides, 121,731 Violent Crimes, 0.51% deaths per violent crime
1986: 661 Homicides, 125,499 Violent Crimes, 0.53% deaths per violent crime
1987: 688 Homicides, 141,042 Violent Crimes, 0.49% deaths per violent crime

In the decade after the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act we get the following numbers:

1989: 641 Homicides, 176,962 Violent Crimes, 0.36% deaths per violent crime
1990: 669 Homicides, 184,665Violent Crimes, 0.36% deaths per violent crime
1991: 725 Homicides, 190,339 Violent Crimes, 0.38% deaths per violent crime
1992: 687 Homicides, 201,777 Violent Crimes, 0.34% deaths per violent crime
1993: 670 Homicides, 205,102 Violent Crimes, 0.33% deaths per violent crime
1994: 726 Homicides, 218,354 Violent Crimes, 0.33% deaths per violent crime
1995: 745 Homicides, 212,588 Violent Crimes, 0.35% deaths per violent crime
1996: 679 Homicides, 239,340 Violent Crimes, 0.28% deaths per violent crime
1997: 739 Homicides, 250,822 Violent Crimes, 0.29% deaths per violent crime
1998: 748 Homicides, 256,070 Violent Crimes, 0.29% deaths per violent crime

*Homicide includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide

Now as we can see deaths per violent crime drops drastically after the passing on this amendment even as murders and violent crime as a whole increased.

Is the firearms act the only thing that led to a dropoff in violent crime or were there other factors that contributed? I think you're still trying to vastly oversimplify a complicated issue with no clear cut answer. Believe it or not the world does not operate on binary black and white conditions.

Still waiting on an explanation for Sweden.

I'm not sure, if I was working on this as a job I might be able to find out and publish a proper paper. As it sits those are the best numbers I could find to support my position. I'm aware that it isn't some pinnacle of research, but at least I have numbers supporting my position now.

The reason why I consider Sweden irrelevant to this is that you can't carry your firearms loaded and ready to go there. Most of the weapons are hunting rifles or target pistols and they have very strict gun control laws. Still even with these laws gun related accidents and crimes will happen. Thus, unless there are incredible circumstances, you're not likely to be any safer due to owning a gun.

Violent crime has also taken a nosedive in the US since the 80's, so...

The question is have deaths per violent crime gone up or down since that time?

[Flagg]

Why? Is that what I said you illiterate cuntspew? My point (I'm going to make it even though by your past history I assume it will go ignored) is that carrying a weapon is a calculated risk. But please, since you made the claim that you have a better chance of injuring yourself than fending off an attacker, prove it.

BTW, I'm not a pro-gun nut. I'm just watching you flail around like a retard and I'd like to see you knock it the fuck off.

Flagg, outside of some action hero scenario where you get to draw before the attackers gets a bead on you with his own weapon, what do you expect to save yourself from with your carried weapon? What factors are you logically, as opposed to emotionally, taking into this risk assessment? Do you really fear violent crime enough that you feel the need to carry a loaded weapon on your person when out of the house?

Not hard to shoot a guy with a knife even if he's pointing it at your head, genius.

I've also just shown how tighter gun laws reduce the number of deaths per violent crime, in a country that was never known for a high volume of gun crime.

Yet the US, which actually eased gun restrictions nationally a few years ago has had the same drop.

[Jub]

Not hard to shoot a guy with a knife even if he's pointing it at your head, genius.

How often do you get threatened with knives Flagg?

I've also just shown how tighter gun laws reduce the number of deaths per violent crime, in a country that was never known for a high volume of gun crime.

Yet the US, which actually eased gun restrictions nationally a few years ago has had the same drop.

Did you even look at the numbers I listed? Violent crime and total murders actually rose over that span in the numbers I posted, deaths per violent crime dropped drastically though.

[Flagg]

Not hard to shoot a guy with a knife even if he's pointing it at your head, genius.

How often do you get threatened with knives Flagg?

How often do you get threatened with guns?

I've also just shown how tighter gun laws reduce the number of deaths per violent crime, in a country that was never known for a high volume of gun crime.

Yet the US, which actually eased gun restrictions nationally a few years ago has had the same drop.

Did you even look at the numbers I listed? Violent crime and total murders actually rose over that span in the numbers I posted, deaths per violent crime dropped drastically though.

In the UK. This is a story from the UNITED STATES, where all crime has dropped signifigantly over the past 40 years. You really are quite the illiterate little fuck, aren't you?

[Jub]

How often do you get threatened with guns?

Never, but in Canada that sort of thing just happens less often. It's a big deal when people fire off cap guns around here.

Also, nice dodge of my question.

In the UK. This is a story from the UNITED STATES, where all crime has dropped signifigantly over the past 40 years.

Yes, but I was asked to show that banning guns causes less deaths due to violent crime. I showed the before and after for the UK gun laws changing and it showed just that.

[General Zod]

The reason why I consider Sweden irrelevant to this is that you can't carry your firearms loaded and ready to go there.

That wasn't part of your original claim. It had no conditions on whether firearms were loaded and ready to go.

Most of the weapons are hunting rifles or target pistols and they have very strict gun control laws. Still even with these laws gun related accidents and crimes will happen. Thus, unless there are incredible circumstances, you're not likely to be any safer due to owning a gun.

Define "incredible circumstances".

[General Zod]

I showed the before and after for the UK gun laws changing and it showed just that.

You don't understand the difference between causation and correlation do you?

[Flagg]

I showed the before and after for the UK gun laws changing and it showed just that.

You don't understand the difference between causation and correlation do you?

I also love how he ignores the fact that violent crime in the US, the only relevant country in this thread, has fallen despite the assualt weapons ban being lifted during the Bush years. So by his own logic, the more guns the safer you are.