Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Colpy]

you're not reading/comprehending. Again, you can't presume to speak to gun related violence, gun related murders and gun related deaths... unless you speak directly to the related statistics. You refuse to do so. All those related statistics are available and have been presented... you refuse to accept them. Of course you do! !

Of course I do.

They are irrelevant.

Once again, if you believe removing guns from the scene prevents involuntary death (murder) then you must show that without access to firearms, the murder rate drops. If you are successful in controlling access guns (a doubtful proposition, especially in the USA), but the murder rate does not drop, then the gun control has achieved nothing.

There are many ways to kill.........and if guns are available, then killers will probably use guns. If guns are not available, then killers will turn to other weapons, and the victims will have no guns with which to defend themselves. "Gun death" statistics can drop, without a single life being saved. That simple and obvious fact makes "gun death" statistics irrelevant in any discussion of murder, and the prevention thereof........

Homicide in Canada, 2011

Notice how shootings declined, stabbings rose?

The entire point.

How many lives did gun control save?

BTW, the graph shows a decline overall in murder rates............that same decline occured in the USA, while they eased gun restrictions. It is a product of demographics, not gun control.

Can this be demonstrated in an even more dramatic fashion.

Oh yes.

In 2011, the US murder rate was 4.7 per 100,000. According to FBI statistics, there were 33,911 murders in that year. 1694 of those murders were committed with edged weapons.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Do the math. One in 20 murders in the USA were committed with edged weapons, yielding a murder rate by edged weapons of 0.23 per 100,000.

The graph above from Statistics Canada shows an edged weapon murder rate in Canada of 0.6 per 100,000.


How can that be? Are there more knives in Canada than in the USA?

Obviously not.

It shows that killers will kill. If they can get a gun, they will probably use that. If they can't get a gun, a knife works very well, thank you.

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence

Study shows gun violence surged in Missouri after repeal of gun control laws

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – Gun Law Information Experts

Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control - The Washington Post


Only other comment......Swimming pool drownings in Quebec are way, way down since implementation of stricter laws. Good laws do work!!

As I just showed above, "gun violence" statistics are irrelevant to any discussion on the prevention of violence in society.

 

[waldo]

Homicide in Canada, 2011

Notice how shootings declined, stabbings rose?

The entire point.

and per StatsCan, in the year before (2010) and the year after (2012), shooting murders were higher than stabbing murders... uhhh, what was your, as you called it, "entire point"?

2010: Shooting Murders => 171 // Stabbing Murders => 165

2012: Shooting Murders => 172 // Stabbing Murders => 164

do you not think someone might just check your data, your claims? :mrgreen: In any case, you were offered an acknowledged point that murders by gun were down as compared to prior decades. But again, you were also provided references that spoke to influences that are contributing to those reduced numbers and associated rates... relatively recent medical and trauma treatment advances that have helped shift what would have been in past years, murder deaths (by shooting) to non-fatal injury gun-violence related occurrences. Again, medical and trauma advances you refuse to accept/acknowledge as, again, it messes with your pro-gun talking points.

How many lives did gun control save?

standard gunner talking point! How would you measure it?

 

[JLM]

and per StatsCan, in the year before (2010) and the year after (2012), shooting murders were higher than stabbing murders... uhhh, what was your, as you called it, "entire point"?

2010: Shooting Murders => 171 // Stabbing Murders => 165

2012: Shooting Murders => 172 // Stabbing Murders => 164

do you not think someone might just check your data, your claims? :mrgreen: In any case, you were offered an acknowledged point that murders by gun were down as compared to prior decades. But again, you were also provided references that spoke to influences that are contributing to those reduced numbers and associated rates... relatively recent medical and trauma treatment advances that have helped shift what would have been in past years, murder deaths (by shooting) to non-fatal injury gun-violence related occurrences. Again, medical and trauma advances you refuse to accept/acknowledge as, again, it messes with your pro-gun talking points.



standard gunner talking point! How would you measure it?

Give it up, Waldo before you start looking foolish!

 

[waldo]

Give it up, Waldo before you start looking foolish!

any fool can presume to suggest what you've just stated... don't hesitate to actually speak to something subject matter related or actually contribute to the thread, hey! Or, wait for it, wait for it... challenge something you infer is "borderline foolish"!

There are many ways to kill.........and if guns are available, then killers will probably use guns. If guns are not available, then killers will turn to other weapons, and the victims will have no guns with which to defend themselves. "Gun death" statistics can drop, without a single life being saved. That simple and obvious fact makes "gun death" statistics irrelevant in any discussion of murder, and the prevention thereof........

bunk! Absolute nonsense. It's the same puffery you've brought forward a brazillion times before... it's the same "logic" you apply in presuming to dismiss gun-related suicides. However justified you feel in excluding gun-related suicides from gun-related deaths... they are still a gun-related death incident...gun suicides are gun-related deaths - go figure, hey!

this line of your so-called reasoning: "they're gonna do it anyways, so none of it counts... the presence of guns is simply a matter of inconvenient circumstance"!!! :mrgreen:

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence

Study shows gun violence surged in Missouri after repeal of gun control laws

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – Gun Law Information Experts

Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control - The Washington Post

did you notice how readily and easily member Colpy simply dispatched your linked study references... why, it just took him referring to his most selective, self-serving grab of a single years (2011) data!

Can this be demonstrated in an even more dramatic fashion.

Oh yes.

In 2011, the US murder rate was 4.7 per 100,000. According to FBI statistics, there were 33,911 murders in that year. 1694 of those murders were committed with edged weapons.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Do the math. One in 20 murders in the USA were committed with edged weapons, yielding a murder rate by edged weapons of 0.23 per 100,000.

The graph above from Statistics Canada shows an edged weapon murder rate in Canada of 0.6 per 100,000.

How can that be? Are there more knives in Canada than in the USA?

Obviously not.

certainly not the first time you've brought forward incorrect numbers and flawed calculation:

for 2011: you are correct in stating the U.S. murder rate was 4.7 per 100,000 persons. However, per your sources, the number of murders in that year was not 33,911; rather, it was (as estimated) 14,612... of which, as you correctly stated, 1694 of those were associated with 'knives or cutting instruments"... what you referred to as "edged weapons".

when you suggest 'do the math'... it's clear you don't understand how to calculate a rate/100,000 population. That 1694 number of murders by knife equates to a 0.54 rate per 100,000. Pretty much on par with your reference to the "0.6 rate per 100,000" you're eyeballing from that StatCan graphic.

and your point was... what?​

 

[DaSleeper]

Give it up, Waldo before you start looking foolish!

Huh?
Do you wonder why he didn't post the link for his stats?

Homicides by method

It couldn't be because those he picked were the only two years out of five that gun homicides were higher than knife homicides....?
And he has the gall to accuse others of selectively picking stats to reinforce their argument.
He also wonders why people in this forum think he is just a joke!!!!!

 

[waldo]

Huh?
Do you wonder why he didn't post the link for his stats?

Homicides by method

It couldn't be because those he picked were the only two years out of five that gun homicides were higher than knife homicides....? And he has the gall to accuse others of selectively picking stats to reinforce their argument.
He also wonders why people in this forum think he is just a joke!!!!!

you dumb fu ck! I looked at the 2012 stats and provided the year before the 2011 reference provided... and the year after... within the 5 year period (2008-to-2012), 2008 was the same figure (201) for stabbings and shootings... 2 of the years (2009 and the Colpy referenced 2011) had stabbings higher than shootings..... and 2 of the years (2010 and 2012) has shootings higher than stabbings. For what your dumb azz presumes to tout, why don't you ask/challenge member Colpy why he singled out year 2011 and didn't say diddly about the 2 years I quoted... in member Colpy's view all he needed to do was simply put down a single year figure with a 'ta da' statement as to his "the entire point"! What I showed was his "entire point" didn't have merit based on his single-year reference. Notwithstanding, of course, if your ignorant self knew anything about trending, you'd know you don't presume to trend on a short 5-year time frame.

notwithstanding, of course, I also reinforced the acknowledged point that "gun murders are down" in relation to prior (longer) periods of time! And, again, I've provided contributory reasons (fully referenced) that speak to influences on that decreasing number... again, influences like medical and trauma care advances that have shifted what would have been past deaths into the 'non-fatal' gun violence related statistics. Of course none of you gunners will touch those references since they don't align with your gunny talking points!

now you sniveling, whiney-assed, stalking lapdog extraordinaire... try harder next time! :mrgreen:

 

[Colpy]

a

do you not think someone might just check your data, your claims? :mrgreen:?

Keep a civil tongue in your head, Sonny.

 

[DaSleeper]

now you sniveling, whiney-assed, stalking lapdog extraordinaire... try harder next time! :mrgreen:

Glad to see you haven't changed overnight and still expect others to follow rules while you don't.....

you're still.....

 

[waldo]

Keep a civil tongue in your head, Sonny.

huh! Based on what you quoted????? Now is this the "new and improved" Colpy speaking here? And this is the extent of your posts in relation to me pointing out your data analysis fails? Really?

 

[Colpy]

and per StatsCan, in the year before (2010) and the year after (2012), shooting murders were higher than stabbing murders... uhhh, what was your, as you called it, "entire point"?

2010: Shooting Murders => 171 // Stabbing Murders => 165

2012: Shooting Murders => 172 // Stabbing Murders => 164

do you not think someone might just check your data, your claims? :mrgreen: In any case, you were offered an acknowledged point that murders by gun were down as compared to prior decades. But again, you were also provided references that spoke to influences that are contributing to those reduced numbers and associated rates... relatively recent medical and trauma treatment advances that have helped shift what would have been in past years, murder deaths (by shooting) to non-fatal injury gun-violence related occurrences. Again, medical and trauma advances you refuse to accept/acknowledge as, again, it messes with your pro-gun talking points.

?

You totally missed the point. I was not comparing gun murders to knife murders year to year, I was comparing the rates for each weapon between the USA and Canada.

As well, if you look at the graph I showed you, it demonstrates that as gun murders fall, murders with other weapons go up. Which is the point you consistently fail to deal with when you insist on only using "gun murder" stats only.

Setting up straw men to knock down does not do a thing for your argument.

 

[waldo]

Glad to see you haven't changed overnight and still expect others to follow rules while you don't.....

go back and read your post I'm replying to! When it comes to your lapdog stalking and purposeful marginalization attempts, I most certainly will give as good as you give... no, wait... I'll give better. What a whiney azzed beeatch you are, hey!

 

[DaSleeper]

go back and read your post I'm replying to! When it comes to your lapdog stalking and purposeful marginalization attempts, I most certainly will give as good as you give... no, wait... I'll give better. What a whiney azzed beeatch you are, hey!

Why don't you tell us about your trip to macchu Picchu while you're at it and include pictures while you're at it???

 

[waldo]

You totally missed the point. I was not comparing gun murders to knife murders year to year, I was comparing the rates for each weapon between the USA and Canada.

As well, if you look at the graph I showed you, it demonstrates that as gun murders fall, murders with other weapons go up. Which is the point you consistently fail to deal with when you insist on only using "gun murder" stats only.

Setting up straw men to knock down does not do a thing for your argument.

no strawman here..... as you continue to ignore contributory influences put forward on why gun murder rates are down. You've ignored them from Day1 and you have the gall to speak of a "strawman"! I see you're not going to acknowledge another of your failed "ta da" efforts in presuming to showcase a huuuuuge difference between stabbing rates (U.S. versus Canada).

Why don't you tell us about your trip to macchu Picchu while you're at it and include pictures while you're at it???

now there's the lapdog, front and centre. I'll certainly replay my entire single sentence quote as to what I said... we've cycled through this how many times now? How desperate and lapping are you? Again, YOU, the guy who after my repeated challenges to 'put up or STFU', all you could come back with, repeatedly come back with, was to state, "you didn't have a reason/rationale to claim I lied... and you didn't need a reason/rationale to claim I lied". You're a lapdog, nothing more, nothing less! You revel in confrontation - it's what you're about! Hey stalker, just look at each and every one of your posts in this thread over the most recent days period. Derail, disruption and confrontation is your game here!

 

[petros]

Of course I do.

They are irrelevant.

Once again, if you believe removing guns from the scene prevents involuntary death (murder) then you must show that without access to firearms, the murder rate drops. If you are successful in controlling access guns (a doubtful proposition, especially in the USA), but the murder rate does not drop, then the gun control has achieved nothing.

There are many ways to kill.........and if guns are available, then killers will probably use guns. If guns are not available, then killers will turn to other weapons, and the victims will have no guns with which to defend themselves. "Gun death" statistics can drop, without a single life being saved. That simple and obvious fact makes "gun death" statistics irrelevant in any discussion of murder, and the prevention thereof........

="http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11738-eng.htm"]Homicide in Canada, 2011

Notice how shootings declined, stabbings rose?

The entire point.

How many lives did gun control save?

BTW, the graph shows a decline overall in murder rates............that same decline occured in the USA, while they eased gun restrictions. It is a product of demographics, not gun control.

Can this be demonstrated in an even more dramatic fashion.

Oh yes.

In 2011, the US murder rate was 4.7 per 100,000. According to FBI statistics, there were 33,911 murders in that year. 1694 of those murders were committed with edged weapons.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Do the math. One in 20 murders in the USA were committed with edged weapons, yielding a murder rate by edged weapons of 0.23 per 100,000.

The graph above from Statistics Canada shows an edged weapon murder rate in Canada of 0.6 per 100,000.


How can that be? Are there more knives in Canada than in the USA?

Obviously not.

It shows that killers will kill. If they can get a gun, they will probably use that. If they can't get a gun, a knife works very well, thank you.



As I just showed above, "gun violence" statistics are irrelevant to any discussion on the prevention of violence in society.

n an effort to stem a spike in gun violence, Saskatoon police Chief Weighill announced the creation of a new gangs and guns unit, the first of its kind in Saskatchewan.

“This type of crime is foreign to Saskatoon,” Weighill told reporters at a news conference Thursday.

“We’ve seen people coming in from other centres, Vancouver and Toronto. They are bringing weapons when they come.”

Weighill said the new amalgamated unit will use surveillance, sting operations and other investigative techniques to stop the flow of guns into the city.

Saskatoon’s healthy economy has made it a hotbed for both drugs and gangs, he said.

According to the most recent data, despite a falling crime rate, gun charges are up in Saskatoon. Police laid 435 weapons charges in 2014, compared to 376 charges in 2013.

Police also say shootings are up. Already in 2015, gunfire has been reported at least 14 times; the city recorded a total of 36 shooting incidents last year.

The announcement of the new unit comes just weeks after Weighill removed four officers from the existing gang unit and sent them back to patrol duties as part of a redeployment effort.


New Saskatoon police unit to target gangs and guns

They know who has the guns and who are using them. Did they use a registry or control law?

 

[DaSleeper]

Hey stalker, just look at each and every one of your posts in this thread over the most recent days period. Derail, disruption and confrontation is your game here!

Go back to before you joined...the level of discussion was of a much better quality...trolls like you seem to incite disruption!
http://ars.userfriendly.org/users/read.cgi?id=36325&tid=133129

The Contrarian Troll.

A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. It is important to distinguish between dissenters and actual Contrarian Trolls, however; the Contrarian is not categorized as a troll because of his or her dissenting opinions, but due to the manner in which he or she behaves:

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster's Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry. Contrarians will resist the urge to be insulting at first, but as their post count increases, they become more and more abusive of those with whom they disagree. Most often they initiate the insults in the course of what has been a civil, if heated, debate to that point.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. "You guys are all just [descriptor]." "You're a lynch mob." "You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you."

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Three: Intellectual dishonesty. This is only a mild indicator that is not limited to trolls, but Contrarians display it to a high degree. They will lie about things they've said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four: Accusing the accusers. When confronted with their trolling, trolls immediately respond that it is the accusers who are trolls (see Natural Predators below). Often the Contrarian will single out his most vocal opponent and claim that while he can respect his other opponents, this one in particular is beneath his notice.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. Pursued by Troll Bashers (see Natural Predators below), the Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice – all the while continuing to respond to them.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Six: One distinctive mark of
Contrarian Trolls is that every thread in which they dissent quickly devolves into a debate about who is trolling whom. In the course of such a debate the Contrarian will display many of the other Warning Signs mentioned above.

 

[waldo]

Go back to before you joined...the level of discussion was of a much better quality...trolls like you seem to incite disruption!

oh, I see... I've incited your ongoing stalking, lapdog disruption and derail routine! :mrgreen: You're even more of a whiney-azzed beeatch than I realized.

The Contrarian Troll.

oh my! Did you search hard for that? Like I said, you and the clubhouse crew don't take kindly to having your echo-chamber questioned/challenged! Do you, hey!

by the by... do you have anything to contribute to the subject matter... or will you continue your stalking, lapdog disruption and derail routine?

 

[DaSleeper]

Read my sig Troll.....I like to bulldoze through Bullshyte....and you fit that bill!

 

[waldo]

Read my sig Troll.....I like to bulldoze through Bullshyte....and you fit that bill!

you're a lightweight (lapdog) with NO GAME! :mrgreen: Has your purposeful derail/disruption meter reached your desired level yet? Like I said, do you actually have something subject matter related to provide... or is "this" all ya got?

 

[DaSleeper]

you're a lightweight (lapdog) with NO GAME! :mrgreen: Has your purposeful derail/disruption meter reached your desired level yet? Like I said, do you actually have something subject matter related to provide... or is "this" all ya got?

YSee...You keep not only proving you're a troll, but a lying toll....and now as Bill O"reilly would say"You can have the last word" until someone else posts something of relevance....

 

[waldo]

YSee...You keep not only proving you're a troll, but a lying toll....

the many times repeated DuhSleeper Lapdogs-R-Us refrain: "I don't have a reason/rationale to claim you lied... I don't need a reason/rationale to claim you lied!!!"

​