The statistics can be skewed depending on what is included. "Homicide" and "Murder" are two different things. Homicide also includes law officers killing perpetrators in the line of duty, citizens lawfully using deadly force and killing an assailant, etc.
Homicide only means the killing of a human by another human. It doesn't differentiate if that killing was murder, self defense, justifiable, etc.
I'm not supporting or discounting a source - just pointing that out to make sure you check to see if you're comparing apples to apples. Comparing a homicide rate in one nation to a murder rate in another won't be a meaningful comparison.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 12-31-2012).]
IP: Logged
09:16 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
I'm pretty sure the guests on Piers Morgan's show were trying to offer useful solutions, as well. But that didn't stop HIM from attacking THEM.
I've only seen the guy once (not sure what channel he's on), but he was in attack mode the one time I saw him. Apparently, some people have a hard time accepting others with differing opinions?
[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 12-31-2012).]
I'm pretty sure the guests on Piers Morgan's show were trying to offer useful solutions, as well. But that didn't stop HIM from attacking THEM.
So in other words they were having a discussion or debate?
I've always thought people with differing opinions were free to think whatever they wanted, I don't have to agree and might think they are dead wrong but they should be able to think whatever it is they like. I do often like to find out WHY they think what they do however.
And in the gun debate often wonder why more people aren't outraged that there any restrictions on guns at all if the think certain ones are such a degradation of their freedom and so on. Debating on the what restrictions may be necessary seems like a logical one IMO but to suggest that the Constitution should give citizens the right to do whatever they please (i.e. owning whatever weaponry they wish because of the 2nd amendment) to me seems ludicrous. Regulations and restrictions in a modern society are needed on plenty of things IMO, some I agree with some I don't, to me that's something to debate and discuss.
IP: Logged
11:23 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
Yup, it's a trade off. Total crime rate in the UK, 26.4% versus the US at 21.1%. Like I said, you have a country with very strict gun control, the crime or deaths as a result of gun related incidence is going to be lower. However, at the same time the deterent for comitting a crime is reduced and non gun related crime goes up. Which is better?
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 12-31-2012).]
Dontchuknow difference of opinion is grounds for deportation?
Me?
I wouldn't say my opinion is different, really. While I could care less if this guy gets deported or what he says, I still beleive in our right to bear arms. I do however think screening should be in place so people with mental conditions that are predissposed to violence are incapable of purchasing a firearm. I think all firearm sales between private individuals should have to be done on a consignment type basis in which the new owner would be required to pass the screening. Sadly, criminals will be criminals and they will ignore those laws also. However, it might prevent some incidences although I don't know if it would be enough. They would also have to have the ATF do periodic checks on gun owners to make sure they still posses the guns that are registered to them and that they had not illegally sold any of those arms.
IP: Logged
11:56 PM
Jan 1st, 2013
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
Subjective. And a rational mind doesn't attack, it investigates. Just sayin....
The aggressive mind attacks The sexual mind does < I dont even want to know> The religious mind prays The business mind is psycopathic an looking for the next oprtinity...... The nationalist mind is interested in being part of the world but ruling it The legal mind is only interested in power
A rational mind, investigates all the above options, then falls back on training and blows the crap out of the nearest threat.
THATS how humans have thunk for 50,000 years, and probobly for the next 50,000..............
NO WONDER drugs and Alcoholism are so prevelelent---among vets...among society, school shootings, university bombings.....
Ya dont REALLY want to wake up from the matrix do you???---otherwise ya might just realize guns are hunting tools to get food with.....might even realize that bows and arrows do just as good a job at getting a turkey......
Naw, humans are too stupid for that
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 01-01-2013).]
IP: Logged
12:49 AM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Yup, it's a trade off. Total crime rate in the UK, 26.4% versus the US at 21.1%. Like I said, you have a country with very strict gun control, the crime or deaths as a result of gun related incidence is going to be lower. However, at the same time the deterent for comitting a crime is reduced and non gun related crime goes up. Which is better?
I think it's more of a cultural/socioeconomic issue than a gun issue. I think the gun restrictions may well the the effect of their proclivities as opposed to being one of the causes. As you pointed out, to reduce gun related crime it's logical to curb the escalation of the "everybody who wants an arsenal should have one" situation we're currently in. Here in Atlanta road rage often involves shooting one the bird, but we also find out that occasionally it also involves just shooting one. I'd prefer the bird.
Ya dont REALLY want to wake up from the matrix do you???---otherwise ya might just realize guns are hunting tools to get food with.....might even realize that bows and arrows do just as good a job at getting a turkey......
Naw, humans are too stupid for that
If you are talking to me, you're not talking to me.
I grew up with lots of guns, I took guns to school, I killed many creatures for food & hide. I am not against guns at all. They are mearly tools.
Anything else applied to me is only the box that others want to fit me into to support their belief of who they want me to be, which is always in opposistion to them. It makes it easier for them to comprehend the sheer genus that is me.
He is not a US citizen so I don't need or want his opinion. Nor is it protected by my constitution like my right to bear arms.
It's like a Civic owner trying to tell me why I should own a civic instead of my Fiero. I don't care about your laws, crime rates violence etc or what you think of mine. I have mine you have yours. You don't like mine? Become a citizen and vote don't look through my windows and think you know me or my house.
IP: Logged
11:54 AM
PFF
System Bot
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
The very best thing about free speech is that we get to hear the opinions of those with whom we disagree. This serves two very important purposes. They may bring up a point that we had not previously considered, allowing us to alter our point of view, and we need to know what others are thinking because we may need to defend ourselves against them. I think that if he is not inciting violence, there is no cause to have him removed.
The best thing about the right to keep and bear arms is that it allows us to protect all our other rights.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 01-01-2013).]
I do however think screening should be in place so people with mental conditions that are predissposed to violence are incapable of purchasing a firearm.
I think if we had a real working version of that in place, we would find many more than you would like to believe would not be allowed to own guns. Including most police officers.
That has been a reoccuring theme in this thread. And the answer seems to be to send him away (where he can still talk).
NOT turn away, plug your ears, don't listen, ignore, or shrug off. You know, all the personal responsability things that everyone here is so fond of.
Am I the only one that finds that strange?
I don't think he should be deported. Just that the title of this thread is misleading as he is not a US citizen and not protected the same way so I don't view them as hypocrite in that reguard. If he was actively trying to alter US policy, sure, but he's offering his opinion on a program catered to people who have the same legal viewpoint as he does. I'm of the, "if you don't like it don't buy it" crowd not the, "if you don't like it get rid of it" crowd (how fitting) so I don't know how that manifests here as I'm still new here. But since he has no relevance to US policy I ignore him not call for his deportation might even call him a village idiot in the process. I'll go 20 rounds with someone else if they so choose if it affects them as well, ie US citizens, and I can cede some points and see others to them, but this guy or any other foreigner, sorry not interested. The US is vastly different in every reguard, from history to policy, politics, socioeconomic, and economic status to them (as is any other country to another) so trying to compare any statistic between the two is comparing a John Deere to a roller skate. It's not a cocky bullish American attitude. It's the same as the one I hear so much about America from these other countries about "minding your own business", why don't you do the same chap?
[This message has been edited by slims00ls1z28 (edited 01-01-2013).]
IP: Logged
01:06 PM
williegoat Member
Posts: 19617 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2009
We also have the freedom to ignore them. The right of freedom of speech is not a right to be heard.
I had never even heard of Piers Morgan, prior to the current controversy. When I saw his picture, I realized he was a cast member on a show that is somewhat of a cross between “Ted Mack's Original Amateur Hour” and “The Gong Show”. As such, I give him all the credit and attention he is due.
IP: Logged
01:14 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
As such, I give him all the credit and attention he is due.
As do I. Him speaking his mind does not bother me in the least. I support his right to speak his mind, that right being percieved by others or not. Or any other humanbeing on earth for that matter, reguardless of where they are standing at the time, or where their mother was standing when they came into that place of which they did not choose to be born.
Freedom is every mans God-given right, no matter what other men may say or do to try to make that not so.
God made men. Men made slaves.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-01-2013).]
Ultimately its academic anyway. He wont be deported. In another week he will be totally forgotten as the next shiny object appears over the horizon that attracts the countries attention.
IP: Logged
01:43 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Just that the title of this thread is misleading as he is not a US citizen and not protected the same way so I don't view them as hypocrite in that reguard.
No, the title was a question.
"So, 48,000 People Support The Right To Bear Arms But Not The Right To Free Speech?"
The answer seems to be "Yes", in that it seems to be that it is believed that that right is only for citizans of The United States.
I disagree.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-01-2013).]
That has been a reoccuring theme in this thread. And the answer seems to be to send him away (where he can still talk).
NOT turn away, plug your ears, don't listen, ignore, or shrug off. You know, all the personal responsability things that everyone here is so fond of.
Am I the only one that finds that strange?
Nope.
As I wonder if I'm the only one that finds any mention of regulating arms to citizens strange seeing as they already have them? You know cause any more would be such an outrageous affront to the Constitution and another step toward Socialism, Communism (insert boogieman word) etc... but the current regulations everyone seems pretty well OK with. :S
IP: Logged
01:56 PM
PFF
System Bot
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
As I wonder if I'm the only one that finds any mention of regulating arms to citizens strange seeing as they already have them? You know cause any more would be such an outrageous affront to the Constitution and another step toward Socialism, Communism (insert boogieman word) etc... but the current regulations everyone seems pretty well OK with. :S
Yeah, but you are from Canada, so your thoughts don't count and i'm not exactly sure you can even speak them. Not being American, the right of free speech is not yours. Sure, it's a "God-Given" right, but God chose America above ALL others as his favorite. You didn't know God was strickly 100% American?! Stupid Canuck!
Yeah, but you are from Canada, so your thoughts don't count and i'm not exactly sure you can even speak them. Not being American, the right of free speech is not yours. Sure, it's a "God-Given" right, but God chose America above ALL others as his favorite. You didn't know God was strickly 100% American?! Stupid Canuck!
I know you are just trying to be funny, but his rights are different than ours. Just as our constitution ( and local laws ) does not extend to protect his rights, Canada's doesn't extend to us.
IP: Logged
02:27 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Not aggressive, passive aggressive. He is always the victim, don't you know. I'm sure I just victimized him again with this post.
You didn't? You just called me something that was untrue. And you would just have it go unanswered?
Did I come looking for you? Did I call you anything? Or even mention you? You sought me out, to call me names.
However, If you still believe you are right, prove it. It should be easy, right? Because I can definatly prove you are wrong.
Ofcourse, all of this could just be a cover for hiding an azzhole.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-01-2013).]
