Originally posted by sasquatch672Well, the U.K. has about six times the rate of assault as the U.S. does. we have a far more violent society than you do, but in general it doesn't end up lethal. The Bill of Rights of 1689 (or so) states that everyone has the right to bear arms according to law and their condition (i.e. class) - so Parliament outlaws almost every conceivable weapon so it ends up in hospital and not the morgue. You should consider this approach - it saves lives.
Gun control laws are completely ineffective at preventing gun violence in Chicago. Why are they going to work somewhere else?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI don't see why a rapist getting sent to the morgue is such a bad thing.
Well, the U.K. has about six times the rate of assault as the U.S. does. we have a far more violent society than you do, but in general it doesn't end up lethal. The Bill of Rights of 1689 (or so) states that everyone has the right to bear arms according to law and their condition (i.e. class) - so Parliament outlaws almost every conceivable weapon so it ends up in hospital and not the morgue. You should consider this approach - it saves lives.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtA-ha! Finally an intelligent argument. No surprise that it had to come from Britain.
Well, the U.K. has about six times the rate of assault as the U.S. does. we have a far more violent society than you do, but in general it doesn't end up lethal. The Bill of Rights of 1689 (or so) states that everyone has the right to bear arms according to law and their condition (i.e. class) - so Parliament outlaws almost every conceivable weapon so it ends up in hospital and not the morgue. You should consider this approach - it saves lives.
I don't know how to get around this. Gun crime in America won't stop because we outlaw guns. Bad guys don't pay attention to laws, right? That's what makes them bad guys to begin with. Twenty dead six-year-olds is an unspeakable tragedy. But so are 4,200-some dead people in Chicago. I will say that gets less attention because the overwhelming majority of those deaths are blacks killed by blacks. It's an unfortunate and tragic truth in America. But even Chicago's Chief of Police admits an assault weapons ban wouldn't do any good.
In America, the issue of guns is intractable. You'll never get them all. Political winds will shift, as they are wont to do, another storm will hit New Orleans, or even something as mundane as our budget woes will occupy our attention (which is long overdue anyway). Even Democrats know that any meaningful legislation isn't going anywhere.
America needed a President that would be presidential. Obama is anything but that. He cannot get what he wants without Republican votes, and his radical agenda ensures those will not be forthcoming en masse. When fully half of the country does any trust you as far as they could throw you, you are not governing, you're lecturing.
Originally posted by joe beyserWell you see - if you escalate then it tends to be the victim who is murdered - not the rapist killed.
I don't see why a rapist getting sent to the morgue is such a bad thing.
Also in the other thread about the US house wife who defended herself against an intruder - she did everything right. She hid with her kids in the attic and when he came in there there was no doubt about the harm he intended - a casual robber would have nicked the telly and run - she had no choice about opening fire and did her best to avoid a situation where she would have to. He insisted on the confrontation and will be regretting it. But not everyone will react so well. She deserves praise not for opening fire - but for the initial retreat. A lot of people will either open fire too soon - when a subdueable offender comes in - or too late after the intruder's got the gun.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtMay get a little crazy at first if every woman was packing, but there are only so many rapists. Their numbers would dwindle in time. Might even prevent more rapists if there is a genetic link to the behavior.
Well you see - if you escalate then it tends to be the victim who is murdered - not the rapist killed.
Also in the other thread about the US house wife who defended herself against an intruder - she did everything right. She hid with her kids in the attic and when he came in there there was no doubt about the harm he intended - a casual robber would ...[text shortened]... too soon - when a subdueable offender comes in - or too late after the intruder's got the gun.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Canada's lousy with guns - they seem to avoid massacres. I'm not going to claim the correlation is simple.
A-ha! Finally an intelligent argument. No surprise that it had to come from Britain.
I don't know how to get around this. Gun crime in America won't stop because we outlaw guns. Bad guys don't pay attention to laws, right? That's what makes them bad guys to begin with. Twenty dead six-year-olds is an unspeakable tragedy. But so are 4,200-some ...[text shortened]... any trust you as far as they could throw you, you are not governing, you're lecturing.
There are plenty of illegal firearms in the U.K. - I live in Hackney, in London, which is allegedly some kind of gun hell - and I've never seen any gun problems (touch wood) - the police not regularly carrying guns helps as it tends to avoid escalating the whole thing.
I don't think there's a magic wand you can wave to solve all this in the U.S. - an existing situation has it's own inertia.
I'm sort of agnostic on gun ownership - I see both sides. But I really don't understand the resistance to outlawing private ownership of fully automatic firearms. AFAIK in the U.K. rifles are not allowed to carry more than two bullets - and that's a concession in case a hunter needs a coup-de-gras - I really do not understand why a private individual needs one thousand rounds a minute. If you're expecting to defend yourself militarily from the state you've already lost - and against anyone else the state will defend you to well below the level you need that kind of firepower.
1 edit
Ugg.. TOTALLY dishonest title.
The death toll by murder in Chicago over the past decade is greater than the number of American forces who have died in Afghanistan since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, according to a police analysis.
There are 2.7 million people in Chicago.
Through most of the last 10 years we had less than 40,000 troops in Afghanistan, and in the earlier years less than 20,000.
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/22/chart-u-s-troop-levels-over-the-years/
"MURDERS" in Afghanistan would be an entirely different statistic.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperOK - first of all, I didn't write it. Second, we're limited in characters. Third - and most importantly - it doesn't strike you as ironic (I'd rather choose another word, but I won't dramatize) that a single American city has had more deaths than an entire country in a war zone? Fourth - Afghanistan has eleven times the population of Chicago, they're armed to the teeth, they're hardened, well-organized, and well-disciplined fighters - and the US has half the gun deaths in Afghanistan - a war zone - than it does in Chicago.
Ugg.. TOTALLY dishonest title.
The death toll by murder in Chicago over the past decade is greater than the [b]number of American forces who have died in Afghanistan since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, according to a police analysis.
There are 2.7 million people in Chicago.
Through most of the last 10 years we had les ...[text shortened]... p-levels-over-the-years/
"MURDERS" in Afghanistan would be an entirely different statistic.[/b]
I think, once in a while, it would enhance your credibility to acknowledge the other side.
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672OK, first of all you DID write the title to this thread.
OK - first of all, I didn't write it. Second, we're limited in characters. Third - and most importantly - it doesn't strike you as ironic (I'd rather choose another word, but I won't dramatize) that a single American city has had more deaths than an entire country in a war zone? Fourth - Afghanistan has eleven times the population of Chicago, they're think, once in a while, it would enhance your credibility to acknowledge the other side.
Second of all, learn how to read. They're comparing the number of deaths OF US FORCES ONLY to the number of murders in all of Chicago.
2 edits
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou're acting like that should somehow matter.
OK, first of all you DID write the title to this thread.
Second of all, learn how to read. They're comparing the number of deaths OF US FORCES ONLY to the number of murders in all of Chicago.
Yeah I typed the title. It came from the article. And I wouldn't rewrite it, given the opportunity.
You're not acknowledging the important part here.
Over the same period, there have been twice as many gun casualties in a single US city as there have been in a country with which the United States is at war. That city has the strictest gun control laws in the country.
Period.
Originally posted by sasquatch672You seriously need hooked on phonics.
You're acting like that should somehow matter.
Yeah I typed the title. It came from the article. And I wouldn't rewrite it, given the opportunity.
You're not acknowledging the important part here.
Over the same period, there have been twice as many gun casualties in a single US city as there have been in a country with which the United States is at war. That city has the strictest gun control laws in the country.
Period.