[QUOTE=McGii;39012789]And people accuse me of not making a counterpoint or ignoring arguments. More guns = more crimes and more deaths and more crimes resulting in death as I have shown[/QUOTE]
You're making a massive assumption in that if those criminals didn't have those firearms, the wouldn't have committed those crimes.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012703]The statistic show that despite a a high number of guns not being used in a crime, more guns = more crimes and death.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=McGii;39012789]And people accuse me of not making a counterpoint or ignoring arguments. More guns = more crimes and more deaths and more crimes resulting in death as I have shown[/QUOTE]
Actually that's not what the stats show.
The data indicates higher fatality rates. OK, that's at least somewhat valid. I may have missed something but injuries are not mentioned, let alone classifications of injuries (IE things like is paralysis more likely without guns or something like that), and the data mentions almost nothing on crime rates overall.
Once again, you are making stuff up. It's like you don't even read the sources you use.
Speaking of AT4's why make such a thing if it can only be used once?
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39012666]Was just doing some reading on your source, found these tidbits:
You're kind of disproving your own point here.
Though the Kleck study should have been done better, the McDowall study you use as evidence doesn't count having a gun but not firing it as a self-defense scenario, which I imagine is the most common self-defense situation. Also about your 5000 people in a country of 300 million edit: a sample size of 2000-5000 is generally considered plenty by statisticians. Just thought you would want to know.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Hemenway concluded that under reasonable assumptions of random errors in sampling, because of the rarity of the event, the 2.5 million figure should be considered only as the top end of a 0-2.5 million confidence interval, suggesting a highly unreliable result that is probably a gross overestimate, with the true figure one tenth that amount or less[/quote]
[QUOTE=McGii;39012817]I ask whats wrong with using a round or grid target, he quotes that and asks the same thing in the condescending tone he uses that destroys all possibility of an argument not turning into a petty bitch fest.[/QUOTE]
and i pointed out that guess what
people do use those.
i mean if the olympic marksman are using that what example are we setting
oh right a good one
[QUOTE=Ermac20;39012829]Speaking of AT4's why make such a thing if it can only be used once?[/QUOTE]
Because it's more portable than carrying a tube on your back along with 6 rockets. Plus the tube can be thrown away to rid yourself of extra weight. Because you don't have to reload it, you can just pick up a new one and keep firing.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39012822]You're making a massive assumption in that if those criminals didn't have those firearms, the wouldn't have committed those crimes.[/QUOTE]
No I'm not
[quote]A quarter of robberies of commercial premises in the United States are committed with guns.[53] Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used,[53][54][55] with similar patterns in cases of family violence.[56] Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons.[57] He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates.[58][59] A significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill.[55][60] Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.[57][60][/quote]
I even quoted a source saying that it doesn't reduce overall crime rate, but severely reduces the number of deaths.
[QUOTE=Ermac20;39012829]Speaking of AT4's why make such a thing if it can only be used once?[/QUOTE]
Rockets are big heavy. It's not really possible to carry enough rockets to make a reusable rocket launcher worthwhile.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012871]I even quoted a source saying that it doesn't reduce overall crime rate, but severely reduces the number of deaths.[/QUOTE]
You directly said that more guns = more crime.
And now you are saying that it does not impact crime rate.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39012890]Your own sources prove you wrong in this aspect. Please re-read them, and come back with a better argument.[/QUOTE]
"Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used," <-- I have quoted that multiple times by the way
"States in the highest quartile for gun ownership had homicide rates 114% higher than states in the lowest quartile of gun ownership. Non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership." [This is about the US]
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state[/url]
I also posted this link showing the huge disparity between gun related murders and non gun related murders, this goes with the last line.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012900]Rockets are big heavy. It's not really possible to carry enough rockets to make a reusable rocket launcher worthwhile.[/QUOTE]
Whats the average weight of a rocket?
[QUOTE=McGii;39012900]Rockets are big heavy. It's not really possible to carry enough rockets to make a reusable rocket launcher worthwhile.[/QUOTE]
The RPG-7 is the most popular rocket launcher in the world and is reloadable
way to talk out of your ass (again) on a topic you have no knowledge of
[QUOTE=McGii;39012939]Not showing how more guns = more crime[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=McGii;39012900]Rockets are big heavy. It's not really possible to carry enough rockets to make a reusable rocket launcher worthwhile.[/QUOTE]
You're actually blatantly wrong in this aspect. A team of 2 people can lug a rocket launcher and several rockets very effectively, IE: RPG-7's and SMAW style systems. Depending on the mission, sometimes it's easier to carry a single AT4.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39012938]By the way, here you are, don't try to back track, own your argument, don't sit there and go "oh god their making me look bad, i better go back and say something else, maybe that'll make me look better"[/QUOTE]
So this is fine for you to say but calling you out on keeping a loaded magazine and rifle within easy reach should your home be invaded when you have a small child despite arguing most gun owners are safe is not?
[editline]29th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39012962]You're actually blatantly wrong in this aspect. A team of 2 people can lug a rocket launcher and several rockets very effectively, IE: RPG-7's and SMAW style systems. Depending on the mission, sometimes it's easier to carry a single AT4.[/QUOTE]
Keyword: Lug. How much ammo can they carry for their main weapon and remain mobile on top of this?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;39012949]The RPG-7 is the most popular rocket launcher in the world and is reloadable
way to talk out of your ass (again) on a topic you have no knowledge of[/QUOTE]
To be fair, that's only really because the RPG-7 and its ammunition is much cheaper to produce. Not every country can afford disposable rocket launchers.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012967]So this is fine for you to say but calling you out on keeping a loaded magazine and rifle within easy reach should your home be invaded when you have a small child despite arguing most gun owners are safe is not?[/QUOTE]
He's already explained how he keeps it safe.
Meanwhile you still haven't explained how more guns = more crime.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012967]
Keyword: Lug. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, because the RPG-7 weighs a WHOPPING 0.2lbs more than the AT-4
seriously why do you keep talking if you're CLUELESS?
[QUOTE=McGii;39012967]So this is fine for you to say but calling you out on keeping a loaded magazine and rifle within easy reach should your home be invaded when you have a small child despite arguing most gun owners are safe is not?
[/quote]
A small child is probably not going to know how to take a loaded magazine, insert it into a rifle or handgun, pull the slide/charging handle, and then shoot someone with it. As long as the firearm is unloaded and out of reach it's fine.
[QUOTE=McGii;39012967]
Keyword: Lug[/QUOTE]
A trained infantrymen isn't going to have a problem doing it, and thousands of poorly trained African rebels and militiamen don't seem to have any trouble with it.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39012983]Meanwhile you still haven't explained how more guns = more crime.[/QUOTE]
We could search all over for his mystical proof and never find it, because it doesn't exist. The only formula for predictably reducing crime is to reduce poverty and increase education.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39012972]To be fair, that's only really because the RPG-7 and its ammunition is much cheaper to produce. Not every country can afford disposable rocket launchers.[/QUOTE]
yeah thats true, doesn't really have anything to do with what McGii said though
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39012990]Let's take into account that the population of the United States is roughly 311,591,917, and the number of crimes, according to your data, is 12664 (its in the middle of that handy dandy graph), thats such a small fraction.. i'm not even going to bother doing the math because you don't read that.
Also your article points out that California has the highest rate of gun violence, despite having some of the strictest gun control in the country, so again, where is the argument?[/QUOTE]
Yes, reducing the loss of life is bad because I think [B]9000[/B] people dying every year is an acceptable percentage - ilikecorn 2012
[editline]29th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39013002]I'm merely stating that you're using it as a cover to hide from the fact that your argument is completely baseless, and even your own data is disproving your theories.[/QUOTE]
Show me exactly where this is the case. Otherwise stop posting until you actually read what I am saying instead of skipping over it then accusing me of doing the same and having nothing.
[QUOTE=McGii;39013035]Show me exactly where this is the case. Otherwise stop posting until you actually read what I am saying instead of skipping over it then accusing me of doing the same and having nothing.[/QUOTE]
This is the case until you show that more guns = more crime. A statement you made, and have been called out on, and continue to evade discussing.
At least have the decency to admit it was not a verifiable statement on your part, and retract it instead of continuing this farce.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39013075]You've failed to acknowledge the rest of the argument, gj cherry picking, but i'll roll with it. MATH TIME:
Stats prove that: 0.004064290281316893% of the population are victims of murder, not gun murder, ALL MURDER. Lets be serious now, and stop trying to play to emotions.[/QUOTE]
You are still arguing to ignore 9146 deaths per year (remember that source I posted where reducing the guns did not result in a significant increase in deaths via other/no weapons, I do) is OK because you think the percentage is acceptably low. The death of a single human being, let alone over 9000, is a tragedy you can't simply dismiss as emotional bullshit, especially when studies show that you an severely decrease the number of deaths by reducing the number of firearms without deaths with other weapons significantly increasing.
About that California comment, the strictest of loose regulation is still loose regulation.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39013099]
At least have the decency to admit it was not a verifiable statement on your part, and retract it instead of continuing this farce.[/QUOTE]
Last time I was criticised for not being able to respond to everyone quickly enough, because of that I made a typo, that post should read gun crime.
[QUOTE=McGii;39013130]You are still arguing to ignore 9146 deaths per year (remember that source I posted where reducing the guns did not result in a significant increase in deaths via other/no weapons, I do) is OK because you think the percentage is acceptably low. The death of a single human being, let alone over 9000, is a tragedy you can't simply dismiss as emotional bullshit, especially when studies show that you an severely decrease the number of deaths by reducing the number of firearms without deaths with other weapons significantly increasing.
About that California comment, the strictest of loose regulation is still loose regulation.[/QUOTE]
so those deaths wouldn't happen if legally owned safe weapons didn't exist
okay
[QUOTE=McGii;39013130]You are still arguing to ignore 9146 deaths per year (remember that source I posted where reducing the guns did not result in a significant increase in deaths via other/no weapons, I do) is OK because you think the percentage is acceptably low. The death of a single human being, let alone over 9000, is a tragedy you can't simply dismiss as emotional bullshit, especially when studies show that you an severely decrease the number of deaths by reducing the number of firearms without deaths with other weapons significantly increasing.
About that California comment, the strictest of loose regulation is still loose regulation.[/QUOTE]
Are you arguing that we should abolish a hobby that over a hundred million Americans actively take part in, in [b]hopes[/b] that it slows or stops [i]some[/i] murders? How about we focus on [i]actual[/i] solutions like better education and bringing people up above poverty levels.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39013138]Also, i overlooked this, my bad, but, WAY to completely miss the argument I made that statistically, the states with the most gun control, somehow have the most gun violence..[/QUOTE]
I've responded to this, and i wanted to avoid doing so because our ideas of what is strict and loose gun control are hugely different and an internet debate that drags on and on won't change that, and it will shit up the thread. But I have already posted numerous times a sourced statement that more guns leads to a much higher amount of death.
[quote]States in the highest quartile for gun ownership had homicide rates 114% higher than states in the lowest quartile of gun ownership.[/quote]
[QUOTE=McGii;39013179]I've responded to this, and i wanted to avoid doing so because our ideas of what is strict and loose gun control are hugely different and an internet debate that drags on and on won't change that, and it will shit up the thread. But I have already posted numerous times a sourced statement that more guns leads to a much higher amount of death.[/QUOTE]
i wonder if that's correlation or causation....
[editline]28th December 2012[/editline]
sarcasm, it's correlation not causation
[QUOTE=McGii;39013179]I've responded to this, and i wanted to avoid doing so because our ideas of what is strict and loose gun control are hugely different and an internet debate that drags on and on won't change that, and it will shit up the thread. But I have already posted numerous times a sourced statement that more guns leads to a much higher amount of death.[/QUOTE]
Correlation is [h2]not[/h2] causation.
[editline]29th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=McGii;39013179]I've responded to this, and i wanted to avoid doing so because our ideas of what is strict and loose gun control are hugely different and an internet debate that drags on and on won't change that, and it will shit up the thread. But I have already posted numerous times a sourced statement that more guns leads to a much higher amount of death.[/QUOTE]
California has a high rate of Homosexuals and gun crime. Obviously the homosexuals are murderers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
