US firearms deaths compared to other countries?

Well I can understand your frustration, given the point of view you have presented.

I too have read many deplorable remarks and statements on this website about other nations.... statements not directed AT those nations, but callous bigoted off-hand remarks made without a care of who might be reading them.

When I said "No one is saying that "Americans are more tolerant than those bad Europeans". " I should have said "No one in this thread is saying..."
 
Well I can understand your frustration, given the point of view you have presented.

I too have read many deplorable remarks and statements on this website about other nations.... statements not directed AT those nations, but callous bigoted off-hand remarks made without a care of who might be reading them.

When I said "No one is saying that "Americans are more tolerant than those bad Europeans". " I should have said "No one in this thread is saying..."
Click to expand...

I appreciate your sentiment and as well as the point you're trying to make, certainly with regards to this particular thread...
:)
 
(Pond, James Pond). I would agree with a lot of what you said in your earlier post. Most are on this forum because of their love of shooting. One of the reasons that i am on this forum is because mostly its well run and has plenty of good advice. Also on the uk shooting forums they don't talk much about handguns after the handgun ban.
 
Do you call the treatment of North American Indians as a good example of tolerance.
Click to expand...

Manta, as I recall when this part of American History was being written most Americans still had pretty strong European accents.

Manta do not try to lecture us when we are simple a divergent path of the same swatch of peoples. You are only different in that you think the road you walk is full of sweet smelling roses.

We know what was done, We know who did it. We just are not going to take a lecture from those who think we are really two different peoples. We have not forgot all your potato eating brethren who left your country for ours and had a hand in making it what it is today.

If you are going to call a kettle black, make sure you are a pot and not a kettle, before you open your trap :D

I'll put this into another light: My Great great whatever Grandad Price was a sailor on a British flagged merchant vessel. They put into port near Quebec and were offloading cargo. Again this what right after the Civil War roughly 1870. The stevedores were unloading cargo and as the family story goes, one was not performing to old Granddad's standards and he berated the man severely. This stevedore was a black man, and as far as Canada was concerned a free man and not a slave. This stevedore gave old Granddad some lip and granddad popped him on the head with a short wooden club and killed him. G-G-Grandad jumped ship when the Mounties came to arrest him and he swam across the river to America, married a Norwegian woman, and started raising Prices.

So there, I am the great great whatever grandson of a English murderer.
 
Last edited:
If you are going to call a kettle black, make sure you are a pot and not a kettle, before you open your trap
Click to expand...

I am not lecturing anyone. Read the earlier posts like the one bellow that i was replying to lecturing me on how tolerant the Americans are compared Europeans. PS Perhaps in future you should read the earlier posts and see what context the reply is made before opening your trap.


Europe is hardly a great example of peace and morality. Niether is Asia or Africa or the Middle East. When you start including genocides then North America is actually a very good example of tolerance and peace.
Click to expand...

So there, I am the great great whatever grandson of a English murderer.
Click to expand...

Good for you. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm coming at this from an outside perspective.
I obey the local laws and use my guns responsibly.
Click to expand...

As do I.....

But I'm not afraid to explore and consider all options. That doesn't commit anyone to anything, except thought.
Click to expand...

If you give them an inch, they'll keep it, and ask for a foot, knowing you'll give them an inch, "as a reasonable compromise", and keep that, too. Repeat ad infinitum.

Any laws that come into effect in the US are unlikely to affect me but, as a human being, I would like to see fewer lives being ended prematurely so if a solution were found that was acceptable to all, it would be nice.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this is that no law you, I, or Chuck Schumer can dream up will keep bad people form doing bad things. I take the Sandy Hook incident and say, "See: the toughest gun laws in the country did not stop this.", and conclude that more gun laws won't deter people that don't give 3 farts in a windstorm what ANY law says...... and Chuck Schumer sees the same thing and concludes the Laws were not tough enough to prevent it, so they need to be made tougher.

Acceptance of the latter argument makes the fact that it won't stop nutters doing nutty things a guarantee for a total ban, eventually.



If the media says it, do you (collectively) have to respond? Why?
Click to expand...

Yes. If only one side makes it's case, and the other side is silent, who gets credibility?

Not that explaining things logically will help: a majority of voters in this country are so ill-eduacated they can not make rational political decisions, relying instead on emotion to tell them what to think..... The Other Side understands this, as they brought out a Brain Damaged gunshot victim to make their case for more gun control, despite the fact that the attacker could have caused more carnage with a sedan than he did with his Glock..... gun laws will not deter those who don't care about the laws.

They do not understand the COTUS, and have not a clue what their rights actually are. How can they value something they have no understanding of?
 
The only problem with this is that no law you, I, or Chuck Schumer can dream up will keep bad people form doing bad things.
Click to expand...

As it happens the action I personally feel would be a step in the right direction; "safe storeage of guns not in use", would actually make it harder from some of those bad things being perpetrated with a gun, at least.

Rest assured, however, the other thread dealing with storage has plenty of replies outlining why people are opposed to that too...

If you give them an inch, they'll keep it, and ask for a foot, knowing you'll give them an inch, "as a reasonable compromise", and keep that, too. Repeat ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

So what is your solution if you are unwilling to even discuss the issue?

Chuck Schumer sees the same thing and concludes the Laws were not tough enough to prevent it, so they need to be made tougher.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I can't blame him too much: everyone does that about one law or another.

Yes. If only one side makes it's case, and the other side is silent, who gets credibility?
Click to expand...

The problem is people actually give these points credence by trying to argue them, and not trying to debunk them. That is the part that puzzles me.

The "pro-gun control" bunch are leading the agenda by what they put out in the media, and the " pro-gun" bunch are then trying to take bites out of what the others have said.

The "pro-gun control" bunch say that "we know gun control works by looking at gun deaths in the UK", for example. What do the "pro-gun" group do? They then fall over themselves trying to pick holes in the statistics from the UK, instead of pointing out that looking at the UK tells no one anything about what is happening in the States.

I don't feel, at this time, that US gun owners are being well-represented by those who have been chosen, or chosen themselves as spokes-persons for gun-rights...

The only guy I've seen lead and not get side tracked in a discussion was a youngish man (with a somewhat high-ish voice) who was interviewed by Piers Morgan. He did well. He pointed out that issues raised were actually irrelevant, rather than trying to win an arguement about them. More of the same, please!

I hope that gun owners have indeed taken action themselves by writing to their state representatives....
If not, well....
 
So what is your solution if you are unwilling to even discuss the issue?
Click to expand...

No solution, because there is nothing wrong from the gun angle. That is the issue.

But there is no issue, and until someone amends the constitution there is no reason to engage in one.

Look, the fed Politicians are stirring the pot, they can't do anything themselves except stir the pot cause they will never get the constitution amended straight up. This way they stir the pot to sway the ignorant and the emotionally driven. The hope for the Mayors and the Governors on their side of the fence to introduce local legislation. The are looking to change the laws from the bottom up, not from the top down.

They insist there must be dialogue, they insist something must be done. Then they point at the inanimate evil gun and shield the "poor disturbed individual". These folks know a lot about how to avoid responsibility. How to shift it onto others' shoulders.

They use our fear that they will "take away our guns" to trick us into bargaining away a little in order to get it all. And sure as the sun will shine, we have people doing exactly that.

How many have already decided that "no more evil black guns is far better then magazine restrictions and loosing all semiautomatic guns." But that is what they will do. It's what they did before.

They want you to say it, like an interrogator after a confession, they want you to say it "OK, maybe I don't need "Assault Weapons", you can have them if I can keep my other semis and mags up to 10 rounds."

They want you to bargain, to argue, to negotiate. They know if we do then they will get something.

But if we do not, if we hold to the 2A, and use it as our shield, then we are ok because by god the 2A says we can keep and bear exactly what they want us to give away.
 
No solution, because there is nothing wrong from the gun angle. That is the issue.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't entirely agree with that.
Guns may not be the cause, but given how prominent they are in these shootings you can't say that there is no problem from the gun angle.

If there were equal numbers of mass-killings that included cars, molotov cocktails, baseball bats, farmyard machinery, etc then, yes you could argue that this has nothing to do with guns.

Anyhow, that is somewhat beside the point.
I will repeat what I said earlier: Talking does not automatically equate to negotiating. It does however widen the understanding of boths sides of the equation as well as those in the middle...
But it seems some don't even want to do that. In the meantime the problem will continue.
 
If there were equal numbers of mass-killings that included cars, molotov cocktails, baseball bats, farmyard machinery, etc then, yes you could argue that this has nothing to do with guns.
Click to expand...

More people are beaten to death than killed with rifles in this country, yet the cry is to ban "Assault Weapons"? .....No outcry against ....say, Martial Arts schools? Of course not: that's as stupid as banning "Assault Weapons".

I will repeat what I said earlier: Talking does not automatically equate to negotiating. It does however widen the understanding of boths sides of the equation as well as those in the middle...
But it seems some don't even want to do that. In the meantime the problem will continue.
Click to expand...

The problem, as I see it, will continue, and it would not matter if all guns were banned. Bad people will do bad things, and banning this or that tool won't stop them.

The only sure solution would be the total anihilation of the human race: then no bad people would do bad things.

I'll take my chances with the bad people..... just don't hinder my self defense options, thankee.
 
More people are beaten to death than killed with rifles in this country, yet the cry is to ban "Assault Weapons"? .....No outcry against ....say, Martial Arts schools? Of course not: that's as stupid as banning "Assault Weapons".
Click to expand...

That, right there!
Why do the pro-gun corner keep trying to chip away and pro-control arguements when these kinds of points show those arguements to be less than logical?

Simple, well-phrased Yes/No questions put to the pro-control lobby are far more effective at testing the strength of this kind of arguement, IMO

Bad people will do bad things, and banning this or that tool won't stop them.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a degree of logic to the arguement that if an item is harder to get hold of, it will be harder for a malicious act to be committed with that item.

Granted it does not mean that the intent will away, nor that they won't find an alternative means, as I mentioned earlier.

Anyway, I asked a question of you, to get a clearer perspective:

So what is your solution if you are unwilling to even discuss the issue?
Click to expand...

And based on the following remark:
I'll take my chances with the bad people.....
Click to expand...

Can I summise that your response is to leave things as they are and do nothing?
 
Violence is a problem of inequality. The bottom 90% fighting over a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. That's where the problem is and the solution needs to address that. What I can own has no bearing on anything. I don't see kids gunned down in America as any more or less tragic then kids starving or dying from preventable disease or car accidents. Dead is dead and they are all tragic. Unless we want to live under a complete police state where we are not allowed to leave our homes we are going to have tragedy.

No government around the world has moral authority over anyone. They commit wholesale mass murder on a regular basis. Hell they paid for my college and paid to send me around the world to do it. So they are not going to tell me what the best way to defend my family is going to be. I will decide that on my own. When they clean up their act maybe they can have some input.
 
Can I summise that your response is to leave things as they are and do nothing?
Click to expand...

If the things proposed will only affect those inclined to follow the laws anyway, and not in affect, say, homicidal maniacs, then no, we should not do them. If nothing is proposed that will actually help the situation, then nothing it is!

Allow the people in these targeted places to have an effective means to defend "them and theirs"? This has been suggested (by me, several times and places, and by the NRA, and others as well) and is certainly not "nothing", but the gun banners will not hear of it.
 
If the things proposed will only affect those inclined to follow the laws anyway, and not in affect, say, homicidal maniacs, then no, we should not do them. If nothing is proposed that will actually help the situation, then nothing it is!

Allow the people in these targeted places to have an effective means to defend "them and theirs"? This has been suggested (by me, several times and places, and by the NRA, and others as well) and is certainly not "nothing", but the gun banners will not hear of it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. :)
Your view is clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top