Gun Control

I'm not wasting another 30 minutes finding statistics that people think are stupid.

i never said it was stupid

if you learned to read

i said that your stupid number post was stupid

and your argument is dumb

your stats were ok but the argument that you were supporting with your stats was dumb

You seriously are good at bothering people DB, have we given you an award for that yet?

Matt your stats and argument were fine don't listen to DB. Just remember that Breloom is a horrible pokemon. Your stats were fine. You don't need stats to continue on. Just pick up your argument where you left off.

KoC - Manslaughter would technically be considered the 3rd degree, it is only listed different because it can be further broken up. There is Negligent and Involuntary Manslaughter. Negligent would be when a company doesn't invest in new equipment and people end up dying because of it while involuntary would be when you had no intentions of killing someone which occurs during an accident, commonly from drunk driving.

« Last edited by nightmare2 on Mar 21st 2014 »

actually breloom is OU lol

Look at you staying on subject. What do you guys think of concealed carry?

I always make sure that if I go off subject that I have something in my post that is still on subject.

And I think it is fine as long as the people concealing the weapons have gone through some sort of program to make sure they are educated on current gun laws and how they effect them. I also think concealed use should only be with handguns

It's kinda hard to conceal an AR-15. And you have to take a training course.

Nightmare - When I looked at your bar graph, it looked odd the number of mass shootings that happened in Australia. But then I looked up whether Australia has always had gun control laws. It turns out before 1998, Australia was like America, with no gun control laws. That is why there have been that many mass shootings here in the last 25 years.

DB - I deleted the number post and the stats list so you have nothing to complain about.
Also, you made a mistake in your post.

You said:

wow, that's so surprising. the most readily available weapon to australian citizens was the most used murder weapon in 2004 to 2004! NEVER SAW THAT COMING.

I also can't read the words on the bottom of the graph because it looks like they are in Chinese characters.

Am I seriously the only one who can read it? Maybe I can read Chinese and I just don't know it!?

I could read the numbers and 'Males' & 'Females'. But still, the graph does nothing if the person it was intended to can't read the bottom.

Right click on the graph and select 'View Image.'
The picture is a '.gif' file - I'd guess that's why the colouring is screwing up on this website.

We since I'm on a phone I can zoom in super far.

Don't really care about the mistake

Also I linked the source site

Not even complaining anymore, you just didn't understand what I was saying was dumb so I cleared that up

He was trying to say without guns people use knives.

actually, i was trying to say that the most readily available killing weapon is going to obviously be the most used weapon in homicides.

it's kind of basic logic.

Nightmare - When I looked at your bar graph, it looked odd the number of mass shootings that happened in Australia. But then I looked up whether Australia has always had gun control laws. It turns out before 1998, Australia was like America, with no gun control laws. That is why there have been that many mass shootings here in the last 25 years.

Time to go find which bar graph you speak of... OK I have no idea which bar graph you speak of. If you meant he Timeline: Mass Shooting Incidents one then that isn't a bar graph, the last picture was of a bar graph.
The bold part confuses me a little, not sure if I'm just not understanding it or if maybe you made a typo but you state that Australia prior to 98 had no gun laws and then go onto say the is why America has had so many mass shootings?

Also the point of that graph, well lemme just repost it.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Newtown.png
Click on it and look again. It should list 8 countries with the US in bold. Then it should have another graph below with US and Other 7 and below that US w/ Newtown and Other 7. What you need to be looking at for that graph are the numbers. All other 7 combined have less of a population than the US however their overall combined rate per 100,000 is much higher than the US.

So what your saying is higher population higher deaths? That's strange.

KingofCorn said:

So what your saying is higher population higher deaths? That's strange.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying the opposite. Higher population, lower deaths. But yes strange.

You would think it would be the other way around.

Yes you would think that. And when you look at the numbers it tells us what?
- The rate per 100,000 people of Mass Shootings' Victims in the last 25 years within the United States of America is at 0.030
- The rate per 100,000 people of Mass Shootings' Victims in the last 25 years within Norway is at 1.365
- Finland at 0.479
- Australia at 0.153
- The United Nations at 0.044
- The Netherlands at 0.036
- Germany at 0.035
- USA at 0.030*
- Belguim at 0.027
*The USA is second to last on that list, yet if they were ranked based upon population it would be at the top.

- The rate for the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Australia, Finland, and Norway all COMBINED is at 0.095*
- the rate for the USA is at 0.030**
*The total population for all 7 combined is at 206 million.
** The USA's population is at 314 million.

- The rate for the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Australia, Finland, and Norway all COMBINED is at 0.095
- The rate for the USA, adding in the Newtown shooting, is at 0.038

So we have learned that the USA has the largest population, even greater than when all of the other 7 are combined, yet has the lowest rate per 100,000 people of Mass Shootings' Victims as well as Mass Shootings in general. While ranked separately it is second to last on the list.