Unbelievable

[atlantamx3]

Meep, not to minmize your tramatic and harrowing experience...

Sooo...in no way did you minimize Meep's horrific event to push an [political] agenda on gun ownership policy? One would be hard-pressed to read your response and find otherwise:

The home owner is an and out of the house that quick with a loaded weapon...It's an evil monster that will never go away for the US unless it changes it's laws, policies, views and perspectives on the NEED to bear arms.
John

Furthermore, according to your native provience, The Toronto Star:

"...From Pearson International Airport to the Don Valley Parkway, and between the 407 and the Lake, Ontario is nearly gun-free...But of course, that is exactly where most gun crimes take place. The conclusion to be drawn from the Star's graphic is obvious: The most sensational shootings and highest number of gun murders in Ontario occur within the area that already has by far the lowest levels of legal firearm ownership.

With this one map, the Star unwittingly proved correct those who argue that a ban on all legal handguns will do nothing to reduce gun crime in Toronto. It also debunked all those, such as the Ontario government, the Liberal Party of Canada and the Star itself, who have made a ban the lynchpin of their crime-reduction strategies"

The simple, inescapable truth is that most firearms crimes being committed in Ontario are not being committed with legal guns, so no ban on legal guns -- whether handguns or shotguns and rifles -- is going to have any impact on crime rates.
2/15/2006
Ontario Crime Rates Highest Where Legal Gun Ownership Lowest
by Lorne Gunter:

I'm sorry John but humans have been committing theft, rape, and larceny for thousands of years. We're still going to have crimes even if you ban handguns. Instead of taking a reactive approach (banning handguns) to these issues, try using a proactive approach (prevention). Inference is a powerful tool when you ask they correct "why-questions": Why do people steal? It has been suggested that socioeconomic status (S.E.S.) is a risk factor. For further reading, I'd suggest MIT Press for current journal articles.

In the end game, perhaps, you'd perfer the assailant use a knife instead? Nevertheless, we could ban those next and continue to be blind to the realistic root issues instead chasing an unrealistic "evil monster"

Nice research there Chank the Tank.

Proves exactly what I said in my posts.

[Grants]

In the end game, perhaps, you'd perfer the assailant use a knife instead?

Yup, I would.

[DavidOS]

Meep, not to minmize your tramatic and harrowing experience...

Sooo...in no way did you minimize Meep's horrific event to push an [political] agenda on gun ownership policy? One would be hard-pressed to read your response and find otherwise:

The home owner is an and out of the house that quick with a loaded weapon...It's an evil monster that will never go away for the US unless it changes it's laws, policies, views and perspectives on the NEED to bear arms.
John

Furthermore, according to your native provience, The Toronto Star:

"...From Pearson International Airport to the Don Valley Parkway, and between the 407 and the Lake, Ontario is nearly gun-free...But of course, that is exactly where most gun crimes take place. The conclusion to be drawn from the Star's graphic is obvious: The most sensational shootings and highest number of gun murders in Ontario occur within the area that already has by far the lowest levels of legal firearm ownership.

With this one map, the Star unwittingly proved correct those who argue that a ban on all legal handguns will do nothing to reduce gun crime in Toronto. It also debunked all those, such as the Ontario government, the Liberal Party of Canada and the Star itself, who have made a ban the lynchpin of their crime-reduction strategies"

The simple, inescapable truth is that most firearms crimes being committed in Ontario are not being committed with legal guns, so no ban on legal guns -- whether handguns or shotguns and rifles -- is going to have any impact on crime rates.
2/15/2006
Ontario Crime Rates Highest Where Legal Gun Ownership Lowest
by Lorne Gunter:

I'm sorry John but humans have been committing theft, rape, and larceny for thousands of years. We're still going to have crimes even if you ban handguns. Instead of taking a reactive approach (banning handguns) to these issues, try using a proactive approach (prevention). Inference is a powerful tool when you ask they correct "why-questions": Why do people steal? It has been suggested that socioeconomic status (S.E.S.) is a risk factor. For further reading, I'd suggest MIT Press for current journal articles.

In the end game, perhaps, you'd perfer the assailant use a knife instead? Nevertheless, we could ban those next and continue to be blind to the realistic root issues instead chasing an unrealistic "evil monster"

the quote from the star is not exactly what i call.... reputable and you can find one source that says one thing im sure i can find one that says the exact opposite. It proves nothing really.

BUT BEYOND THAT.

Ban the guns, if the USA can invade a country full of terrorists, camel jockeys with AK47s and fucked up ppl who just had violent tendencies towards them. Then banning local firearms is easy, use the army if you have to as a policing mechanism against crime, plus that said,
increase the number of police. I mean if crime is that bad get some
good cops.. you know the ones that dont just sit on the highway
pulling over speeding vehicles, or stopping kids with loud mufflers.
Get them trained to stop crime... by crime i mean the real nitty gritty
shitty crime that poor meep and kids had to see.

Violence begets violence, Israel / Palestine is the perfect example. And this statement is always true... unless your Jesus. Which i wish i was cause my car would be GODLY PIMPED but im not.

You own a gun to "protect" your house. Which is the very extreme level of deterency in a neighbourhood. However why not barbwire fencing around the backyard, alarm systems, security guards, booby traps first? Do i want to get sugar from my neighbour probably not anymore.

There are better ways then just giving everyone the right to own guns.
Instead of building communities we tear them down by chosing for a higher violent outcome. I own a gun i carry it with me to work, guy pisses me off enough i shot him in the head oops. Dude backs into my mx3, BLAM BLAM.
So many reasons not to just have guns everywhere. Problem is in society and and towns and cities need to start new initiatives to bring neighbours together. yah its complex but probably worth it.

People can say yeah crime rates dropped because everyone is packing. But that is not a scientific correlation and not proof. Maybe everyone
shot each other? Maybe the criminals moved to the next town? there are alot of variables. In the end just its not a simple process, but it needs to start with disarmament and a peaceful process. All countries need to focus more on themselves for a bit and then the world can slowly become a better place, USA can be the land of the free.

there are criminals, and yes he can have a f---ing nuclear weapon i dont care, if my time is up its up. Howver im not gonna shoot another person and lower myself to his level. The most disarming thing in the world is a peaceful even loving reaction to violence, stops ppl dead in their tracks, confuses the s--- outta them. Laugh all you want, there are sooo many accounts of it in WW2, even in the most horrible places EVER ON EARTH OR IN HELL, the death camps.

There are ways. They are hard, but probably worth it.


ps. Iran must stop their nuclear program? what the f--- for they are just protecting their backyard right?
violence begets violence
live by the sword die by the sword

peace beotchs

[mr1in6billion]

You own a gun to "protect" your house. Which is the very extreme level of deterency in a neighbourhood. However why not barbwire fencing around the backyard, alarm systems, security guards, booby traps first? Do i want to get sugar from my neighbour probably not anymore.

There are better ways then just giving everyone the right to own guns.
Instead of building communities we tear them down by chosing for a higher violent outcome. I own a gun i carry it with me to work, guy pisses me off enough i shot him in the head oops. Dude backs into my mx3, BLAM BLAM.
So many reasons not to just have guns everywhere. Problem is in society and and towns and cities need to start new initiatives to bring neighbours together. yah its complex but probably worth it.

I really didn't want to get into the middle of this, but your two arguements were just completely off. If my neighbor owns a gun, that is completely different then them errecting a ten foot concrete wall around their house. If I go over to their house to borrow some sugar, I trust they wont answer the door while holding the gun behind their back 'just in case' I was a stranger. Chances are it's hidden away in their bedroom until they hear glass breaking and footsteps downstairs in the middle of the night. I also trust they wont take that same gun to work.

I used to work in shipping and recieving. That meant every where I went I carried with me a knife that could slice cardboard mid air and it wouldn't flinch. Yes, If I wanted to I could kill someone if they backed into my car, but I never did. I never even pulled my knife on anyone even jokingly. Just because someone has a weapon doesn't mean it's a bad thing or that they will use it unwisely.

Like Chanko said, it's about prevention.

There has always been violence, and as long as there are sexual, racial, ethnic, national, social, and ideological differences between childish adults, the world will remain violent. This whole arguement is proof of that.


For the betterment of this forum this thread should be locked.


And Meep, I'm sorry, I'm just glad all of you are okay.

[DavidOS]

You own a gun to "protect" your house. Which is the very extreme level of deterency in a neighbourhood. However why not barbwire fencing around the backyard, alarm systems, security guards, booby traps first? Do i want to get sugar from my neighbour probably not anymore.

There are better ways then just giving everyone the right to own guns.
Instead of building communities we tear them down by chosing for a higher violent outcome. I own a gun i carry it with me to work, guy pisses me off enough i shot him in the head oops. Dude backs into my mx3, BLAM BLAM.
So many reasons not to just have guns everywhere. Problem is in society and and towns and cities need to start new initiatives to bring neighbours together. yah its complex but probably worth it.

I really didn't want to get into the middle of this, but your two arguements were just completely off. If my neighbor owns a gun, that is completely different then them errecting a ten foot concrete wall around their house. If I go over to their house to borrow some sugar, I trust they wont answer the door while holding the gun behind their back 'just in case' I was a stranger. Chances are it's hidden away in their bedroom until they hear glass breaking and footsteps downstairs in the middle of the night. I also trust they wont take that same gun to work.

I used to work in shipping and recieving. That meant every where I went I carried with me a knife that could slice cardboard mid air and it wouldn't flinch. Yes, If I wanted to I could kill someone if they backed into my car, but I never did. I never even pulled my knife on anyone even jokingly. Just because someone has a weapon doesn't mean it's a bad thing or that they will use it unwisely.

Like Chanko said, it's about prevention.

There has always been violence, and as long as there are sexual, racial, ethnic, national, social, and ideological differences between childish adults, the world will remain violent. This whole arguement is proof of that.


And Meep, I'm sorry, I'm just glad all of you are okay.

you took everything about what i said out of context but oh well its to be expected on the internet. No one ssaid erect 10 ft walls, the point was there are other deterrents besides guns.
Secondly i dont own a gun, i was pointing out circumstances that would piss off most ppl and the ppl with anger management problems which there are alot of, well i hope they arnt packing.

the excuse theres always violence is just that, an excuse to allow it.
instead of tackling the problem we just say, hey we cant get any better.

[neutral]

In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:


373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
*11,789 people in the United States

(*These 1998 numbers account only for homicides, and do not include suicides or unintentional shootings, which comprise an even greater number of gun deaths)

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

ummm... DUH

[atlantamx3]

Do you have population numbers for those countries during that year? Maybe its proportional.

[RaverChankoMX3]

In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:


373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
*11,789 people in the United States

(*These 1998 numbers account only for homicides, and do not include suicides or unintentional shootings, which comprise an even greater number of gun deaths)

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

ummm... DUH

Neutral:

What are these data to suggest? Homicides by handguns post stricter handgun laws? If so, please present these data (pre-existing handgun laws)because, without such data you cannot conclude a deduction in handgun homicides.

Secondly, sadly NO ONE has addressed my post successfully in solidifying the issue behind robbery.

Anyone person who addresses such crime as Meep's with stricter handgun laws is simply not getting the issue.

[DavidOS]

Do you have population numbers for those countries during that year? Maybe its proportional.

propotional ??
no, Canadas population is 30 million, USA is 10 times more at 300 million.
(Approximate)
and, therefore take canadas 151 x 10 for population hell x3 for a bad
year and we still fall short of the USAs Homicide by handgun rate by about
3 more times!!

Then just look at JAPANS thats amazing, and proof culture has so much to do with it and how you organize your legal system is key!
Guns are just to accessible there. Japan has a population of 127,417,244
these number speak very loudly about value systems, access to weapons and culture.

Chanko, the direct comparison is not needed, the simple fact is the number is so overwhelmingly large compared to other westernized countries that the list of reasons that correlate would 100% include somewhere the easy access to handguns. you only need to be 16, with some ID and 50 bucks. Restrictions and control works... no one said its fool proof and a perfect solution but it helps.

[neutral]

In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:


373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
*11,789 people in the United States

(*These 1998 numbers account only for homicides, and do not include suicides or unintentional shootings, which comprise an even greater number of gun deaths)

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

ummm... DUH

Neutral:

What are these data to suggest?...

Well... here's a couple possibilities I could guess at from those numbers fwiw.

1. Assuming that guns don't kill ppl...
2. And that ppl kill ppl...
3. And compared to other industrialized countries on the list, the US pop. has pretty widespread easy access to handguns.
4. More ppl with easy access to handguns = higher # of ppl killing ppl.

There have been studies indicating that Americans are really not significantly more violent than other comparably industrialized societies/countries. The diff appears to be that Americans have the ready means to make that violence lethal. Handguns are a much more versatile tool for killing someone than say... a knife. Killing someone up-close-and-personal with an edged weapon is not nearly as convenient as taking a sec to cap them with a couple of quick rounds.

Just a thought.

[Vanished]

Its true. Its incredibly easy to pull a trigger, and it takes no skill what so ever. Point a shoot. And kill.

[RaverChankoMX3]

DavidOS & Neutral:

You two seem to have flown off course. The issues that spawned from Meep's story were banning/restricting gun ownership to prevent robberies. I maintained that focusing on restrictive policies (or banishment) are reactive arguments that are shortsighted and misleading. I went on to state that a venue such as Socioeconomic Status (S.E.S) has more potential to curb such a crime.

References:
N.S.F funded:
http://www.poverty.smartlibrary.org/New ... gment=1664

I don't really have time to address your other issues you bring up about handgun ownership, but here are a few.

**Inversely, David & Neutral, Switzerland and Israel have easily accessible gun laws that include assault rifles and conceal weapons to name a few, however, both have low homicide rates! Similarly, favorite quoted countries like England and Japan have had low gun rates for many years independent of gun restriction policies! In fact, The US has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates!

**Also, Neutral, it's typically not of good taste or profession to cite data from a bias group like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. It reminds me of the story when Hersey Foods Corporation funded research to determine the relationship between its product and tooth decay. The study's findings failed to reject the null hypothesis, and Hersey's candy bars were shown to have no relationship. It erects itself for many confounds.

**David, I don't really understand your correlation argument. Correlations are not scientific and fallaciously lead to gullibility. Hell, I could derive a correlation between One's Health v. # of Electrical Appliances owned. Does that mean that the more electrical appliance you own, the healthier a person will be? No.

Bottom line, such a crime like Meep's (attempted robbery) cannot be predicated on handguns. (Any paragraph that has ** is off-topic and not worth digressing)

And for the record I don't own a gun, NRA membership card, nor do I care to. It's just fun to discuss =D

[DavidOS]

DavidOS & Neutral:

You two seem to have flown off course. The issues that spawned from Meep's story were banning/restricting gun ownership to prevent robberies. I maintained that focusing on restrictive policies (or banishment) are reactive arguments that are shortsighted and misleading. I went on to state that a venue such as Socioeconomic Status (S.E.S) has more potential to curb such a crime.

References:
N.S.F funded:
http://www.poverty.smartlibrary.org/New ... gment=1664

I don't really have time to address your other issues you bring up about handgun ownership, but here are a few.

**Inversely, David & Neutral, Switzerland and Israel have easily accessible gun laws that include assault rifles and conceal weapons to name a few, however, both have low homicide rates! Similarly, favorite quoted countries like England and Japan have had low gun rates for many years independent of gun restriction policies! In fact, The US has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates!

**Also, Neutral, it's typically not of good taste or profession to cite data from a bias group like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. It reminds me of the story when Hersey Foods Corporation funded research to determine the relationship between its product and tooth decay. The study's findings failed to reject the null hypothesis, and Hersey's candy bars were shown to have no relationship. It erects itself for many confounds.

**David, I don't really understand your correlation argument. Correlations are not scientific and fallaciously lead to gullibility. Hell, I could derive a correlation between One's Health v. # of Electrical Appliances owned. Does that mean that the more electrical appliance you own, the healthier a person will be? No.

Bottom line, such a crime like Meep's (attempted robbery) cannot be predicated on handguns. (Any paragraph that has ** is off-topic and not worth digressing)

And for the record I don't own a gun, NRA membership card, nor do I care to. It's just fun to discuss =D

actually correlations are used in science through observation testing only. He presented some statistics i drew some correltations. Which could be easily said to be true or false but most likley true. Why? because America does have a problem with guns and violence.

The economics of poverty is the biggest problem in general in the world. But your not gonna solve that one EVER! and neither am I so screw that topic. I did a huge paper (40 pages) on globalization and economic poverty.
There are no good solutions. I think teh current stat of poverty in the USA stands at 60 million living in poverty.

Meeps topic wasnt about university topics.IN general it was about him getting jacked by a--holes and not really scouring deeper for economic reasons behind it. OUR responses were to control guns because their ease of access and that is one way to restrict access to a--holes.

[RaverChankoMX3]

actually correlations are used in science through observation testing only.

Do you even know what you just said, David? It's obvious they are used in any Observation method: Naturalistic observation or Laboratory observation. THAT'S why we run z-tests, f-tests, ANOVAs, etc. to find if the population sample mean was significantly different, or not, from the general population. That's why the major problem with descriptive methods is that [we] have little control = bad. Please, don't confuse the previous with a scientific linear proportionality. For instance say Ohm's Law (V=IR) for an ideal resistor, the current and the potential difference are linearly proportional to each other. A behavioral correlation and a physics law are dissimilar

The economics of poverty is the biggest problem in general in the world. But your not gonna solve that one EVER! I did a huge paper (40 pages) on globalization and economic poverty.
There are no good solutions.

Okay, Mr. 40-page Paper Man, I'm starting to be concerned about you. Let me clarify things before you run amuck. S.E.S. is a combination of factors including income, highest education attained, job occupation, community social status, group associations, and the community's perception of themself. Enter data:

In Islands in the Street: Urban Gangs in the United States, Martin Jankowski researched 37 gangs of different ethnicity and location. They earned their money by means of gambling, mugging, armed robbery, drugs, etc. He also noted that reason for joining a gang include access to money, anonymity in committing crimes, protection, and an alternative to dead-end jobs. Hm, interesting. We have the highest counts of homicides by guns committed by gang members with the lowest S.E.S. status. Now, lets focus your knowledge from your 40pg paper toward the issue of S.E.S. in the United States. With your knowledge, how would you suggest we offer gang members and opportunity? An "incentive", you may, as I'm sure you're overally familiar with this word.

Or, should we just tell these arguably innocent kids destined from brith to a certain S.E.S. status that we're "not gonna solve that [this] EVER!"..."there are no good solutions" ..."so screw [this] topic!"

?

[Grants]

Or, should we just tell these arguably innocent kids destined from brith to a certain S.E.S. status that we're "not gonna solve that [this] EVER!"..."there are no good solutions" ..."so screw [this] topic!"

That seems an extraordinarily stupid thing to tell them and even the suggestion to do so retracts significantly from anything sensible you had said. So does comments like

Okay, Mr. 40-page Paper Man, I'm starting to be concerned about you.