The Denver killer is clearly a very very sick young Man.

[Simster]

The murders were "caused by a firearm"? You mean had the firearm not existed the murders would not have taken place? Are you sure?

Yes, I think we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that not all of those 10.27 murders per 100,000 population would have taken place had firearms not been readily available.

I think you need to do a better job of defending these stats from a US persepctive where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution:

USA 10.27 (unintentional death rate 0.23)
UK 0.46 (0.01)
Germany 1.57 (0.04)


Can you do that? I very much doubt it.

 

[dingodan]

A true twisting of actual statistics taking a 'once notorious' single neighbourhood area of New York city and comparing it with the whole of Greater London. 6 times more likely is utter bullish*t, even the Daily Mail only jumped it up to 25% more likely, and they twisted the figures for their own ends.

And if you haven't been reading the international news, I'm not sure the NYC mayor agrees with you either!

The statistics are not looking at a "once notorious" single neighborhood of anywhere. The reality is, despite common misconceptions, this country is amongst the worst for serious and violent crime.

England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study - Telegraph

 

[Acker79]

There was a twitlonger tweet thingy from jason alexander (?) earlier in this thread. He seemed to counter every point dingodan is making before he made them.

 

[dingodan]

Yes, I think we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that not all of those 10.27 murders per 100,000 population would have taken place had firearms not been readily available.

I think you need to do a better job of defending these stats from a US persepctive where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution:

USA 10.27 (unintentional death rate 0.23)
UK 0.46 (0.01)
Germany 1.57 (0.04)


Can you do that? I very much doubt it.

Do you know why there is a 2nd amendment?

I don't have to defend anything. And guns don't cause murder as you imply, use your brain.

 

[dingodan]

There was a twitlonger tweet thingy from jason alexander (?) earlier in this thread. He seemed to counter every point dingodan is making before he made them.

Yeh good point well made

 

[Mellotron]

There was a twitlonger tweet thingy from jason alexander (?) earlier in this thread.

And he is now getting people threatening to SHOOT him for his anti-gun views. Words fail me.

 

[dingodan]

If there were more guns in that cinema, there probably would've been more fatalities.

That makes no sense at all. Apart from the gunman involved, who else would have added to the casualty list by firing on innocent people? Nobody would. A responsible gun owner would have shot the gunman firing at innocent people.

If someone else had had a gun in that cinema the death toll would have been less, it would not have been more that is absurd.

 

[Bold Seagull]

1,901 people killed on Britain's roads in 2011. That is multiple boeing 747 crashes every year. Should we ban cars?

The murders were "caused by a firearm"? You mean had the firearm not existed the murders would not have taken place? Are you sure?

Why do you call my view subversive? The concept of an individuals right to defend himself is a historical one. Lord Saltoun said "Unless there is not only a right but also a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, no police force, however large, can do it." Is he being subversive? Accusing me of being "subversive" just a cheap way of demonizing me and my view without having to use your intellect.

The article I posted is by Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College and a senior fellow in the MIT Security Studies Program, author of "To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right".

Joyce Lee Malcolm, conveniently of course is largely on the payroll of the NRA, regularly speaks at their conferences, and along with several other academics form an inner circle of justifying the second amendment. Her view distorts truth, fact and statistics for the ends of proving her overall thesis, hence I referred to her article as subversive. If you believe you have been demonised because I suggested the article was subversive, then I wonder if you know what the term means.

Do you actually know who Lord Saltoun is? An hereditary peer. Christ, is that the best at MIT professor can come up with!

Would the 9000 murdered victims still be dead without firearms? Are you seriously in return suggesting that without guns, they would all still be murdered? If that's the case, why do 70% of murderers in the US go to the expense of fire arms and bullets when a kitchen knife would suffice? The fire arm makes it easy, distant, with less risk, no struggle, no personal involvement. I would suggest that figure would be significantly reduced if firearms were not available.

 

[Mellotron]

That makes no sense at all. Apart from the gunman involved, who else would have added to the casualty list by firing on innocent people? Nobody would. A responsible gun owner would have shot the gunman firing at innocent people.

If someone else had had a gun in that cinema the death toll would have been less, it would not have been more that is absurd.

Not absurd at all. The FIRST thing the killer did was use tear gas, disorientating everyone. Now imagine EVERYONE

a> has a gun, b> are disorientated, and c> are firing, trying to take the killer down.

It's a dark room. The panic has caused absolute pandemonium, everyone running all over the place, incredibly confusing and hard to work out where or who the killer is. Now place into the panicking, trembling hands of a regular citizen fearing for their lives A GUN EACH.

You think that would equal LESS deaths? Ok then.

 

[Bold Seagull]

That makes no sense at all. Apart from the gunman involved, who else would have added to the casualty list by firing on innocent people? Nobody would. A responsible gun owner would have shot the gunman firing at innocent people.

If someone else had had a gun in that cinema the death toll would have been less, it would not have been more that is absurd.

Can you not imagine the horror, the pure terror and screaming and chaos in that darkened room!? You think someone could just stand up and take a clear shot at the gunman with no risk of hitting anyone else? You really have to be kidding. The guy had 4 semi automatic weapons strapped to him. Mr Hero is just going to pop up and take him out in a dark room? Seriously, you must be suspending reality. In all likelihood, even with a firearm most people would be too frozen in terror to be able to point it, let alone aim and take a 'responsible' shot at the guy.

 

[dingodan]

Joyce Lee Malcolm, conveniently of course is largely on the payroll of the NSA, regularly speaks at their conferences, and along with several other academics form an inner circle of justifying the second amendment. Her view distorts truth, fact and statistics for the ends of proving her overall thesis, hence I referred to her article as subversive. If you believe you have been demonised because I suggested the article was subversive, then I wonder if you know what the term means.

Do you actually know who Lord Saltoun is? An hereditary peer. Christ, is that the best at MIT professor can come up with!

Would the 9000 murdered victims still be dead without firearms? Are you seriously in return suggesting that without guns, they would all still be murdered? If that's the case, why do 70% of murderers in the US go to the expense of fire arms and bullets when a kitchen knife would suffice? The fire arm makes it easy, distant, with less risk, no struggle, no personal involvement. I would suggest that figure would be significantly reduced if firearms were not available.

Yes but you said murders were caused by guns. I said take away the guns and, while murder might be more difficult to successfully achieve than with a gun, the will and desire to commit the act remains, regardless of the existence of the gun.

Lord Saltoun is a Peer, therefore what? Are you that childish?

Joyce Lee Malcolm is on the payroll of the NSA? I thought I was the conspiracy theorist. I cannot find anything to suggest she is on the payroll of the NSA. That would be strange also because although there is a 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, the open policy of successive US governments over the last 20 years has been to systematically disarm the American people with incremental changes to gun control regulations.

It would be strange if part of her work for the intelligence community was to defend the right of citizens, under the constitution, to keep and bare arms. They are kind of after the opposite.

 

[Phat Baz 68]

Absolutely terrible for all the victims, and their families can't imagine how the relatives must be feeling.
This lad is clearly the top end of the scale when it comes to severe mental illness almost certainly some sort of Psychotic breakdown !!
Would it be right to execute someone who is that ill ? I'm not sure it would be.
He clearly needs to be locked away indefinetely and almost certainly never released,
but as is here there are plenty of very very mentally ill people roaming our streets
who have been turned away by the authorities too many times or let back into society before they should have been for one poor excuse after another.
I'm not sure exactly what this lads story is but, i really don't see how you can execute someone who is clearly mentally deranged and very very ill.

 

[dingodan]

Not absurd at all. The FIRST thing the killer did was use tear gas, disorientating everyone. Now imagine EVERYONE

a> has a gun, b> are disorientated, and c> are firing, trying to take the killer down.

It's a dark room. The panic has caused absolute pandemonium, everyone running all over the place, incredibly confusing and hard to work out where or who the killer is. Now place into the panicking, trembling hands of a regular citizen fearing for their lives A GUN EACH.

You think that would equal LESS deaths? Ok then.

You might imagine that. But your dark nightmare vision is actually not particularly realistic. You just have a healthy distrust of guns, and hey they are dangerous. But your fear is irrational and is a result of conditioning and not actual logic. In my opinion.

 

[dingodan]

Can you not imagine the horror, the pure terror and screaming and chaos in that darkened room!? You think someone could just stand up and take a clear shot at the gunman with no risk of hitting anyone else? You really have to be kidding. The guy had 4 semi automatic weapons strapped to him. Mr Hero is just going to pop up and take him out in a dark room? Seriously, you must be suspending reality. In all likelihood, even with a firearm most people would be too frozen in terror to be able to point it, let alone aim and take a 'responsible' shot at the guy.

Better that he just shoot fish in a barrel and wait for help to arrive then I guess.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes but you said murders were caused by guns. I said take away the guns and, while murder might be more difficult to successfully achieve than with a gun, the will and desire to commit the act remains, regardless of the existence of the gun.

Lord Saltoun is a Peer, therefore what? Are you that childish?

Joyce Lee Malcolm is on the payroll of the NSA? I thought I was the conspiracy theorist. I cannot find anything to suggest she is on the payroll of the NSA. That would be strange also because although there is a 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, the open policy of successive US governments over the last 20 years has been to systematically disarm the American people with incremental changes to gun control regulations.

It would be strange if part of her work for the intelligence community was to defend the right of citizens, under the constitution, to keep and bare arms. They are kind of after the opposite.

Sorry, NRA, it would indeed be ridiculous of the NSA to be funding her, I did of course mean the National Rifle Association of which her texts are often commissioned for, and speaks at their various conventions etc. The NSA would be a conspiracy theory beyond even what you could come up with!

 

[Simster]

Do you know why there is a 2nd amendment?

I don't have to defend anything.

Yes you do. You have to defend the right to bear arms when the murder rate is 25 times higher than ours. And you can't.

And guns don't cause murder as you imply, use your brain.

Yes, yes I know. I am using my brain, and from the stats I see, you are FAR less likely to be SHOT DEAD in this country than you are in the US. How is that not using my brain? Are you really that simple?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Better that he just shoot fish in a barrel and wait for help to arrive then I guess.

Would it have even happened if this former Phd student had had to go deep in to the criminal world to buy his weapons at extortionate prices and at great risk to himself, rather than just order them online, or pop to the local store?!?

 

[dingodan]

Yes you do. You have to defend the right to bear arms when the murder rate is 25 times higher than ours. And you can't.

Yes, yes I know. I am using my brain, and from the stats I see, you are FAR less likely to be SHOT DEAD in this country than you are in the US. How is that not using my brain? Are you really that simple?

You are trying to make out that when guns are illegal there is less murder. When guns are legal there is more murder. Correlation does not mean causation, and as demonstrated in this country by the ban on handguns in 1997, infact banning guns does NOT reduce gun related crime. Despite the correlation, there is not causation.

Is that easier for you?

 

[dingodan]

Would it have even happened if this former Phd student had had to go deep in to the criminal world to buy his weapons at extortionate prices and at great risk to himself, rather than just order them online, or pop to the local store?!?

To seek to prevent crimes in this kind of way is impossible. All you end up doing is destroying peoples Liberty.

If we lock up every British citizen in their home, there would never be another crime committed.

I have just solved all crime.

Pat me on the back.

 

[Simster]

You are trying to make out that when guns are illegal there is less murder. When guns are legal there is more murder. Correlation does not mean causation, and as demonstrated in this country by the ban on handguns in 1997, infact banning guns does NOT reduce gun related crime. Despite the correlation, there is not causation.

Is that easier for you?

No I'm not. I'm trying to demonstrate that there is a LOT more gun crime in a country where the right to bear arms is enshrined in law, where there are gun stores on street corners of many poor neighbourhoods because anyone can buy one, than in a nation where you have to go to great lengths to buy one.

Now is that easier for you? I'm tiring of your lack of intellect to be honest, but if you could just demonstrate why the stats below ought to be dismissed out of hand, perhaps we could move on?

USA 10.27 (unintentional death rate 0.23)
UK 0.46 (0.01)
Germany 1.57 (0.04)

To clarify, here is my premise: ANYONE can own a firearm in the US. Not surprisingly (to me), their murder rate is 25 times higher than ours. Given that FACT, do we really want our firearms laws relaxed?