Woman shot in the head after knocking on door and asking for help - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;42789112]Have you ever bothered to look at the US's statistics? In 2011, [url=http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8]1694 homicides used a knife[/url]. Between June 2011 and June 2012 in the [url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/Sn04304.pdf]UK there were 200 homicides using "a sharp instrument"[/url] This means, per 100,000 people (using a population of ~312,000,000 for the US in 2011 and 63,700,000 in the UK for June 2012) the US has a homicide rate when the knife is the weapon used of 0.543 per 100,000 compared 0.314 per 100,000 for the UK.[/QUOTE] Those are homicides, not crimes involving a knife. Still useful Ogo.

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;42789112]Have you ever bothered to look at the US's statistics? In 2011, [url=http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8]1694 homicides used a knife[/url]. Between June 2011 and June 2012 in the [url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/Sn04304.pdf]UK there were 200 homicides using "a sharp instrument"[/url] This means, per 100,000 people (using a population of ~312,000,000 for the US in 2011 and 63,700,000 in the UK for June 2012) the US has a homicide rate when the knife is the weapon used of 0.543 per 100,000 compared 0.314 per 100,000 for the UK.[/QUOTE] Admittedly we likely have different classifications of violent crimes. I'm fairly sure our definition of physical assault makes it impossible to compare to the US easily as ours is a lot more vague.

[QUOTE=Squad1993;42789136]Those are homicides, not crimes involving a knife. Still useful Ogo.[/QUOTE] are you appeased now lol [I]During the year to June 2012 there were approximately 29,513 recorded offences involving knives or other sharp instruments, accounting for 7% of selected offences, a similar proportion to previous years. The number of knife offences recorded was 9% lower than in the preceding year.[/I] [B]- SN/SG/4304[/B]

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;42789129]I dunno who you can act like this when people throw piece after piece of relevant, government-cited evidence at you (with a 16 year gap actually being extremely recent when it comes to data) and still make snide posts like this. Have some dignity you gigantic joker lmao. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] Find a more recent and relevant source ;)[/QUOTE] 9/11, internet, mass shootings. all happened during this period skewing the results.

[QUOTE=Squad1993;42789184]9/11, internet, mass shootings. all happened during this period skewing the results.[/QUOTE] Skewing them how exactly your denialism is astounding

[QUOTE=Squad1993;42789184]9/11, internet, mass shootings. all happened during this period skewing the results.[/QUOTE] that makes literally no sense, though. how can the internet influence family members having guns. what. can you like, back this up because this would be an anthropological marvel.

Id rather have more recent data and stats. Alot has happened over 16 years.

[QUOTE=Squad1993;42789215]Id rather have more recent data and stats. Alot has happened over 16 years.[/QUOTE] explain what is wrong with these government statistics please explain exactly what has invalidated them and why. If you can't even do that then why are you even arguing.

and just because you refuse to look things up yourself i decided to check the u.s. knife crime statistics from 2012 (relevant and recent enough??) and got 23167 knives used in robberies, 123701 knives used in aggravated assault and 1589 knives used in homicide, giving a total of 148457 knives used in crimes across the u.s. during 2012 you can fact check it here in case you think it is not relevant or maybe the internet influenced the knives idk, i'm tired and might have fucked up the sums [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls[/url] [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/22tabledatadecpdf/table_22_aggravated_assault_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls[/url] [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/21tabledatadecpdf/table_21_robbery_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls[/url]

Ok, so adding together the statistics from the [url=http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_19_rate_number_of_crimes_per_100000_inhabitants_additional_information_about_selected_offenses_2011.xls]FBI website for 2011[/url] (which omits some violent crimes) Robberies: 23,043 Aggravated assault: 124,380 Rape: use of weapons not tracked. 68,637 occurred by force. Murder: 1694 So for a total of 149117 crimes involving knives or cutting instruments (Robberies, assault and murder only) This means a rate of 47.79 per 100000 people (using same numbers as before) Now, looking at the numbers Cheeseman posted and using the same data of 29,513 offenses involving knives and other sharp objects. This means a rate of 46.33 per 100000 people. So without [U]any[/U] other violent crime other than robberies, assault and murder, the US has a higher rate of violent crime than the UK does for any "offences involving knives or other sharp instruments". [editline]7th November 2013[/editline] Well dammit.

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;42789287]and just because you refuse to look things up yourself i decided to check the u.s. knife crime statistics from 2012 (relevant and recent enough??) and got 23167 knives used in robberies, 123701 knives used in aggravated assault and 1589 knives used in homicide, giving a total of 148457 knives used in crimes across the u.s. during 2012 you can fact check it here in case you think it is not relevant or maybe the internet influenced the knives idk, i'm tired and might have fucked up the sums [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls[/url] [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/22tabledatadecpdf/table_22_aggravated_assault_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls[/url] [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/21tabledatadecpdf/table_21_robbery_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls[/url][/QUOTE] Despite being a twat towards me by critiquing my wording, this is good information. Thank you. I have been in class and unable to do my own research on the topic. This is relevant to knife crimes. The graph NoDachi posted, in my opinion, is too dated to be reliable today. The invention of the internet, and therefore online trading and selling of firearms has probably skewed the results by adding 1 or more areas of purchasing. I see that Families take up 35%, however there is a higher percentage in illegal means, and on top of that some stores skimp out on the official registration of a firearm at sale, further skewing the chart. That is why I asked for a more recent and relevant source.

I'd just like to point out that banning guns in the US wouldn't do jackshit to change our shitty, violent culture here in the USA. It'd be like trying to put a band-aid covered in holes over a gaping artery wound. There are a few countries with lax gun laws that have nowhere near our gun crime levels - the only European one that comes to mind is the Czech Republic. They have laws similar to my state(Minnesota), where pistols/semi auto rifles are only acquirable with a permit but bolt action/single shot rifles are available to anyone without a criminal record. Despite this, the murder rate in my state is 1.0 per 100,000 people. In the Czech Republic, it's .12. There is a much bigger problem in the US than our lax gun laws, it's that our people are readily willing to use firearms to 'solve' minor confrontations. Not to mention our ridiculous gang violence problem.

[QUOTE=Gordy H.;42789715]I'd just like to point out that banning guns in the US wouldn't do jackshit to change our shitty, violent culture here in the USA. It'd be like trying to put a band-aid covered in holes over a gaping artery wound. [/QUOTE] I understand this as a valid argument but I still always disagree. No matter how little effect it might have, even if, let's say, ONE gun was taken off the streets directly because of a ban, that's one less gun that could, for all you know, have been a murder weapon. Criminals are always going to have guns, yes, but there's a much smaller opportunity to get ahold of them. Crimes can still be committed with legally-bought weapons which would be throttled by a ban, and if you take into account that people are lazy, unless someone is absolutely hell-bent on killing, they're not going to be anywhere near as willing to jump through all the metaphorical hoops of illegally getting one.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;42786045]Guns enable bad people to very easily do bad things like what happened in the article. Don't even argue that.[/QUOTE] So then stop guns from getting to bad people instead of blaming the guns for the crime?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;42789928]So then stop guns from getting to bad people instead of blaming the guns for the crime?[/QUOTE] People need to learn the difference between blaming the murder weapon for the murder, and acknowledging that the murder would not have taken place in its absence.

What do the anti private gun ownership people in this thread think of Switzerland, with high gun ownership but low gun crime? I'm not trying to argue the other side, I'm just curious how you account for it.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42789976]People need to learn the difference between blaming the murder weapon for the murder, and acknowledging that the murder would not have taken place in its absence.[/QUOTE] Good luck removing all guns from circulation.

"Knock knock!" "Who's there?" "Life in prison."

[url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/]More guns = more homicide.[/url] [url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/]More guns = more suicide.[/url] [url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/]Guns are rarely used in self defence by law abiding citizens[/url] [url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/firearms-archives/]Guns are mainly carried in fear of other gun carriers[/url] I'm not citing it as an end all set of studies, but it's an interesting set of statistics.

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;42789907]I understand this as a valid argument but I still always disagree. No matter how little effect it might have, even if, let's say, ONE gun was taken off the streets directly because of a ban, that's one less gun that could, for all you know, have been a murder weapon. Criminals are always going to have guns, yes, but there's a much smaller opportunity to get ahold of them. Crimes can still be committed with legally-bought weapons which would be throttled by a ban, and if you take into account that people are lazy, unless someone is absolutely hell-bent on killing, they're not going to be anywhere near as willing to jump through all the metaphorical hoops of illegally getting one.[/QUOTE] I wasn't making the 'bad guys will always have guns' argument, or even saying that the U.S. shouldn't ban guns. What I was trying to say is that I don't feel comfortable at all knowing that there are so many people living in the US who would kill people over minor confrontations or for minuscule financial gain - and I'm going to feel uncomfortable about it regardless of whether or not these people have firearms. I just don't think firearm ownership is the real societal problem we should be addressing to combat violence and murders.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;42785975]We live in the 21st century now, not the 18th century. Why does America still need guns in their constitution?[/QUOTE] Oh I don't know, why do we need a constitution at all huh?!?!?! Maybe we should just have a set of rules that can be changed at any time the government deems fit; we'll call it Common Law.

[QUOTE=Gordy H.;42790057]and I'm going to feel uncomfortable about it regardless of whether or not these people have firearms.[/QUOTE] Surely you'd feel a little bit less uncomfortable knowing it's less likely that they have guns, though? If I got into a confrontation with someone it's easier for them to kill me with a gun than pretty much anything else. Knowing that the "enabler" of an easy crime is missing, even if it didn't make me comfortable, would be a bit more reassuring,.

[QUOTE=Lurker;42785885]This is why guns are bad.[/QUOTE] ''Some wacko killed a lady with a gun, all guns are bad''

[QUOTE=xxncxx;42790013]Good luck removing all guns from circulation.[/QUOTE] It's impossible to remove all of [I]anything [/I]from circulation. Removing the majority is actually possible and debatably feasible.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;42789990]What do the anti private gun ownership people in this thread think of Switzerland, with high gun ownership but low gun crime? I'm not trying to argue the other side, I'm just curious how you account for it.[/QUOTE] Even the Swiss get pissed off when americans try to make this connection. They keep a rifle locked in the attic with no ammunition as part of an actual trained, conscripted militia. But the swiss do have highest gun crime in europe. [img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65786000/gif/_65786660_gun_homicides304.gif[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912[/url]

[QUOTE=BFG9000;42790067]Oh I don't know, why do we need a constitution at all huh?!?!?! Maybe we should just have a set of rules that can be changed at any time the government deems fit; we'll call it Common Law.[/QUOTE] Having a constitution and having widespread access to firearms are not interdependent.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;42790013]Good luck removing all guns from circulation.[/QUOTE] It'll take time, but by severely limiting the influx on new guns, the prices are going to rise. Higher prices = less likely for criminals to use them for more trivial criminal things. Slowly they'd be outphased until it's only bigtime criminals that'd have them. Also it'll severely damage the flow of firearms to the Mexican drug cartels, since many of their weapons are bought second-hand in the US and then smuggled into Mexico. Thus it'll also do good in the fight against organized crime in Mexico. [QUOTE=BFG9000;42790067]Oh I don't know, why do we need a constitution at all huh?!?!?! Maybe we should just have a set of rules that can be changed at any time the government deems fit; we'll call it Common Law.[/QUOTE] So by your logic, any white American should be allowed to own a African slave. Yeah, why adapt to the future when we can stick to silly relics from a era long gone.

Not to mention, of course, that in a lot of scenarios, a gun isn't even useful as a defensive measure. If someone shoots you in the back of the head randomly as you're walking down the street, whether or not you have a gun is totally irrelevant. However, if guns are appropriately regulated, then the number of criminals that possess guns goes down, you're less likely to ever get shot in the back of the head. It's a win win in that particular scenario, and I've yet to be shown a convincing situation in which possessing a gun would actually provide some benefits.

[QUOTE=person11;42786340]Only in a gun culture would someone be more willing to shoot someone than call the cops. People in other countries trust cops to keep everyone safe, but here, most of us have fantasies about killing bad guys instead of needing cops. It's kinda dangerous, as we can see here.[/QUOTE] To be quite fair, a gun [I]is [/I]much better for self-defense that waiting on police. No sense denying that. The problem is any jagoff can get a gun and be way to trigger happy. There needs to be like a mandatory training about this sort of thing. [editline]7th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=CheeseMan;42786423]Tbh the fact that shit like this happening constantly isn't a wake-up call to Americans then I guess there isn't much we can do except wall you guys off[/QUOTE] Don't worry we're already trying our best to wall ourselves in [editline]7th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=i-am-teh-sex;42786446]Again, no they don't, guns are literally nothing more than pieces of moving metal, it's the people that influence these things[/QUOTE] This kind of argument is so retarded "ah people are just an arrangement of organic molecules nothing special"

[QUOTE=jesse1412;42790052][url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/]More guns = more homicide.[/url] [url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/]More guns = more suicide.[/url] [url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/]Guns are rarely used in self defence by law abiding citizens[/url] [url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/firearms-archives/]Guns are mainly carried in fear of other gun carriers[/url] I'm not citing it as an end all set of studies, but it's an interesting set of statistics.[/QUOTE] Correlation is not causation (referring to first two links which neither of them prove causation and only note that there is a correlation.)