why the left hates guns

[The_Dude 1,142]

As someone with experience doing security for the government, I can tell you there's a certain level of firepower necessary to deter a threat.

As someone who works for the police, I know that there is a certain level of firepower necessary, and that firepower is best suited to law enforcement and the military.

[Heracles 417]

Not true. We have 55 times more homicides... but our rate is only 4-5 times higher per capita. Nowhere near the HUGE 55 times disparity you're claiming.

which works out to be 450% higher.

Per 100,000 people [per capita], Australia has 22% the homicide rate of the United States.

As someone who works for the police, I know that there is a certain level of firepower necessary, and that firepower is best suited to law enforcement and the military.

Slim fails to grasp this concept.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Heracles

[The_Dude 1,142]

which works out to be 450% higher.

Per 100,000 people [per capita], Australia has 22% the homicide rate of the United States.

Slim fails to grasp this concept.

Slim has a fundamentally different interpretation, no sense of context, and slides back and forth between a literal and an interpretational view on the amendment.

[Heracles 417]

Germany has some of the strictest gun-laws in the world. Coincidentally, their homicide rate [per Capita] is 16% that of the United States. The US basically has 627% more homicides per capita.

[Heracles 417]

Slim has a fundamentally different interpretation, no sense of context, and slides back and forth between a literal and an interpretational view on the amendment.

My argument with Slim is regarding whether gun ownership makes a country safer, yet the evidence is stacked up against it. Slim then attempts to twist data and make it suit his view.

His favorite point is that Australia's rate when up during the first few years following the restriction. He basically assumes that criminals would hand their guns in automatically following any new restriction. Common sense suggest the police will need to find them and take them off the streets; which takes time.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Heracles

[slim 1,525]

Slim, you clearly fail to interpret the data presented to you. You are basically confusing per capita with total homicides.

Look at your quote below.

So you would use "firepower" because you don't like domestic policies.

If it came to that. I'd hate to do it, but as a last resort, I'd be compelled to.

Sounds a lot like terrorism to me.

You obviously have no idea what terrorism is. Although, I don't blame you because - like assault weapons - the definition has been corrupted by the media (and govt.) lately.

Was that before or after your arrest?

Before.

As someone who works for the police, I know that there is a certain level of firepower necessary, and that firepower is best suited to law enforcement and the military.

So you think the police and military should outgun civilians?

which works out to be 450% higher.

Per 100,000 people [per capita], Australia has 22% the homicide rate of the United States.

Slim fails to grasp this concept.

So if AUS's homicide rate - per capita - is 22% of the US's, how is it 55 times lower? Because that's what you said in your other post. You keep mixing overall number of homicides and per capita rate. I've never disputed there's a difference. However, I have disputed how much. You said before that we have a 55 times higher homicide rate and that's not true.

We have about a 4.5 times higher rate. If you want to say it as 450% that works out fine, but you can't say it as 55 times higher. Personally, I'd stick with 450% if I was you. Sounds a lot worse than 4.5, especially when you consider that we're BOTH still well under 1% per capita.

Slim has a fundamentally different interpretation, no sense of context, and slides back and forth between a literal and an interpretational view on the amendment.

I have a fundamentally different interpretation than you. I have a sense of context that differs from yours. I slide between literal and interpretaiontal views while keeping to the same argument. I haven't changed my stance, only how I relate it to you - and that's only in an attempt to help you better understand what it means since you obviously don't understand.

[The_Dude 1,142]

So you think the police and military should outgun civilians?

That seems fairly moot, they already do, by far. But for the sake of clarity, yes, yes I do.

I have a fundamentally different interpretation than you. I have a sense of context that differs from yours. I slide between literal and interpretaiontal views while keeping to the same argument. I haven't changed my stance, only how I relate it to you - and that's only in an attempt to help you better understand what it means since you obviously don't understand.

Slim, you switch between a literal and an interpretational view when it suits you, or when your argument is crumbling. Clearly, if you think that we should have a well armed populace so that it can rise up against the government, you've got a warped sense of context.

[slim 1,525]

Germany has some of the strictest gun-laws in the world. Coincidentally, their homicide rate [per Capita] is 16% that of the United States. The US basically has 627% more homicides per capita.

German police have the right to forcibly remove bodily fluids from those they suspect of drunk driving. Should we do that here too?

And seriously.... are you actually trying to use Germany as the model of a place where gun laws have worked?

My argument with Slim is regarding whether gun ownership makes a country safer, yet the evidence is stacked up against it. Slim then attempts to twist data and make it suit his view.

How can you twist data? Data is data. You can word it a different way, but the stats remain the same regardless of how you present them.

The facts.... the homicide rate (per capita) of the US and AUS is so minimal, it doesn't affect the daily lives of citizens.

His favorite point is that Australia's rate when up during the first few years following the restriction. He basically assumes that criminals would hand their guns in automatically following any new restriction. Common sense suggest the police will need to find them and take them off the streets; which takes time.

No, no. My favorite point is you guys were stupid enough to waive your rights to personal security in the false sense of "the greater good" that was based on a "high number" of homicides.

The joke is truly on you. That's my favorite point.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You obviously have no idea what terrorism is. Although, I don't blame you because - like assault weapons - the definition has been corrupted by the media (and govt.) lately.

If you are arguing that the use of firepower is a reasonable response to government policies that you disagree with, like healthcare reform, then you are clearly advocating terrorism.

[slim 1,525]

That seems fairly moot, they already do, by far.

Um, actually, they don't. Not even close.

Sure, they can come together and form a well-armed force, but so can "we the people." I'd also like to remind you it's illegal to use the military to perform police operations in the US.

if you think that we should have a well armed populace so that it can rise up against the government, you've got a warped sense of context.

If you disagree with that statement.... you misunderstand the 2nd amendment - both literally and interpretationally.

[slim 1,525]

If you are arguing that the use of firepower is a reasonable response to government policies that you disagree with, like healthcare reform, then you are clearly advocating terrorism.

First of all, armed response is not terrorism.

Secondly, use of firepower in response to one policy is probably not likely. Using it to overcome years and years of tyranny is more likely since that's what happened before.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

First of all, armed response is not terrorism.

Secondly, use of firepower in response to one policy is probably not likely. Using it to overcome years and years of tyranny is more likely since that's what happened before.

Semantics. In this context "armed resistance" undoubtedly IS terrorism.

So you don't like being taxed, you don't like healthcare reform, you don't like bank bailouts, do you honestly think that gives you a right to shoot people?

[Heracles 417]

So if AUS's homicide rate - per capita - is 22% of the US's, how is it 55 times lower? Because that's what you said in your other post. You keep mixing overall number of homicides and per capita rate. I've never disputed there's a difference. However, I have disputed how much. You said before that we have a 55 times higher homicide rate and that's not true.

We have about a 4.5 times higher rate. If you want to say it as 450% that works out fine, but you can't say it as 55 times higher. Personally, I'd stick with 450% if I was you. Sounds a lot worse than 4.5, especially when you consider that we're BOTH still well under 1% per capita.

I have not mixed it up at all. I will summarize it yet again.

1. When it comes to comparing homicides per capita [1.2 vs 5.4], AUS has 22% of the US's homicide rate - per 100,000 people

2. When it comes to comparing total homicides in a year [2008], US has 16,272 vs AUS's 260. 16,272 [divide] 260 = 63 times actually.

Now factor the population difference of the two countries: 310/22 = 14 times the population.

Therefore, based on population, the US homicide rate would need to drop to 3,640 a year to equal Australia's 260 a year.

3640 [divided] 16,272 = 22% ~ both figures verify each other.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Um, actually, they don't. Not even close.

Sure, they can come together and form a well-armed force, but so can "we the people." I'd also like to remind you it's illegal to use the military to perform police operations in the US.

OK slim, you and your buddies get good and liquored up and take on a tank batallion. Lemme know how that goes for you.

If you disagree with that statement.... you misunderstand the 2nd amendment - both literally and interpretationally.

You are hopeless slim. You have a fundamental lack of information and comprehension in addition to your inability to actually read what is out there. Ignorance is bliss for some I suppose.

[Heracles 417]

No, no. My favorite point is you guys were stupid enough to waive your rights to personal security in the false sense of "the greater good" that was based on a "high number" of homicides.

The joke is truly on you. That's my favorite point.

These guys are right, that you change angles when your point is proven wrong. What you have illustrated [yet again] is that you simply want guns because of:

1. You basically want them

2. Actual belief that it will protect you against your government; which is basically loony talk.

One of the two are wrong.

A. The twenty or so independent [free] countries making up the first world that have bans or restriction being stupid

or

B. Middle Americans who want guns.