View Full Version : The Canadian college shootings
Two threads this week involving guns and then this happens: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5343714.stm
I'm definitely in the party of making guns accessible to people increases the chances of something like this happening.
A nutter without a gun is safe.
A nutter who can walk into a store and buy a gun isn't.
PF links: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=131578 and http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=131334
I thought there would be tonnes of postings on this from you US and Canadian guys - particularly as it happened in an educational institution.
Something else which I thought would spark more discussion in the news - again, I haven't heard much in the world news - is that he seems to have got some inspiration for killing from video games: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5346110.stm
Astronuc
Sep18-06, 08:08 AM
I don't think there is much else to say.
The individual (gunman) seemed to be mentally ill and alienated. Somehow he decided to start shooting people, but since he committed suicide, we are only left to speculate as to the motive.
This can happen anywhere, and does periodically occur. It has happened periodically in the US, even in the local area. Access to guns certainly increases the probability that someone with mental illness could act out in society and kill people. That seems a price that some societies are willing to accept. :rolleyes: :uhh:
Anttech
Sep18-06, 08:28 AM
yeh but without the guns how can we defend ourselfs from people with mental illnesses, especially violent ones, with guns?????
/sarcasim
:biggrin:
JasonRox
Sep18-06, 02:53 PM
If there was no guns, we wouldn't have to worry about people with mental illnesses with guns.
JasonRox
Sep18-06, 02:55 PM
yeh but with the guns how can we defend ourselfs from people with mental illnesses, especially violent ones, without guns?????
/sarcasim
:mad:
Say what?!
Just playing. :)
If there was no guns, we wouldn't have to worry about people with mental illnesses with guns.
I can't argue with that, but, since guns have been invented and are actually manufactured in large quantities, how do you propose we get rid of all the guns?
- Warren
I'm sure even without guns they would find another way to make "their point".
JasonRox
Sep18-06, 03:11 PM
I can't argue with that, but, since guns have been invented and are actually manufactured in large quantities, how do you propose we get rid of all the guns?
- Warren
I never said I had a proposition.
You're right, scorpa. You can kill people pretty effectively with thrown kitchen knives, chlorine gas made from bleach and vinegar, you name it.
- Warren
It's not hard for someone that is determined to get a gun to get hold of one illegally. Where the banning of guns would stop most normal people from getting a gun, it more than likely wouldn't stop a "nutter" as you call them.
You're right, scorpa. You can kill people pretty effectively with thrown kitchen knives, chlorine gas made from bleach and vinegar, you name it.
- Warren
Yes that is what I am getting at. It's not the gun that gets up by itself and decides to go on a rampage....it's the idiot using it. If guns were banned it would be just as easy for them to poison (but thats not as flashy), make a bomb, throw knives....ect. Yes guns are dangerous in the wrong hands but unfortunately so are a lot of things.
Anttech
Sep18-06, 03:57 PM
It's not hard for someone that is determined to get a gun to get hold of one illegally. Where the banning of guns would stop most normal people from getting a gun, it more than likely wouldn't stop a "nutter" as you call them.So would you say the world would be safer if most people had guns, or just a few dettermined nutters?
So would you say the world would be safer if most people had guns, or just a few dettermined nutters?How many people own guns is not an issue, it's the intent of the individual user. I don't need to worry about the overwhelming majority of gun owners, only the "few determined nutters" and that's so rare, I'm more likely to die from slipping in my shower, but I'm not going to call for a ban on showers. I can only think of one person that I personally know that owns a gun, and it's an antique shotgun he inherited. Do you think that every American buys guns just because we can?
Anttech
Sep18-06, 04:09 PM
It was totally hypothetical question and nothing to do with America. I just wanted to know what your oppinion was. I have heard some people argue that it would be safer, I was wondering if that applied to you.
However since you brought it up, I would say that it is a matter of how many people owe guns, the less who do the less chance that someone is going to get shot, by someone with a gun.
However since you brought it up, I would say that it is a matter of how many people owe guns, the less who do the less chance that someone is going to get shot, by someone with a gun.Someone intent on commiting violence would just use another means. We're talking about someone obviously disturbed. People don't become violent just because they own a gun.
So would you say the world would be safer if most people had guns, or just a few dettermined nutters?
Oh, give me a break. Guns do not make the world less safe, violent people do. Is that so hard to grasp?
A gun is a tool that can be used for good, or can be used for evil.
So I guess before the advent of the gun crime was nonexistant, right???
We all own knives, do we go around slashing at people? No, because it too is a tool that can be used for good or bad.
However since you brought it up, I would say that it is a matter of how many people owe guns, the less who do the less chance that someone is going to get shot, by someone with a gun.
Where I come from I don't know anyone who does not own a gun, in fact I would imagine the average number of guns in each household would be about 5.....some a few less but many a lot more (and i mean alot!) and no one has ever been shot, hurt, killed, or maimed in anyway. People are careful and bad things don't happen, it's when some psychopathic nutjob gets ahold of them that things become problematic, but like was mentioned multiple times before in this thread if they did not have guns they would find something else to get the job done. Haha got to love that old saying "Guns dont kill people, people kill people" :smile:
selfAdjoint
Sep18-06, 04:42 PM
Police just arrested some teens in Green Bay, Wisconsin for plotting to attack their high school a la Columbine. They were planning to shoot people they didn't like, but their main plan was to set off bombs near the rest rooms.
As we see from the daily news from Iraq, bombs can be more effective than guns if all you want to do is kill people.
Math Is Hard
Sep18-06, 04:50 PM
Haha got to love that old saying "Guns dont kill people, people kill people" :smile:
Actually, bullets kill people.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Actually, bullets kill people.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Haha you got me there!!!! :tongue:
JasonRox
Sep18-06, 05:33 PM
Guns don't make the world less safe... so um... why do we have them?
In Canada, almost no one has guns. They aren't common like they are in the US. It's not going to stay that way because of our neighbours who won't let them go. Who are you defending yourself from that require a gun? Umm... the British left a lllllooooonnnnnngggggg time ago.
Yeah, but George Bush replaced the british!
We have guns because we can, and its our right to. You take away my rights, and I'll shoot you. That's why we have the right to own guns.
Why have them? Skeets, hunting, law enforcement, personal protection...to name a few. Shooting is a sport you know, ever watch the olympics?
Our choice of guns is ours, not canadas, nor the Uk's.
In order to analyze the gun issue, just think of the boundary conditions.
If no one had a gun, would the world be a safer place? If every person had a gun, would the world be a safer place?
Perhaps I'm a left wing extremist, but I think guns should be illegal.
Maybe I'm naive, but where I live I do not know one person/family with a gun. And if I found out one of my friends or their parents kept a gun/guns, I would automatically think less of them.
It's funny, I was watching this PBS special on blogs influencing politics in the US, and the narrator said something along the lines of "the sterotypical blogger is a young, radical left winger". I burst out laughing because I'm a blogger and that stereotype IS me.
JasonRox
Sep18-06, 05:49 PM
Why have them? Skeets, hunting, law enforcement, personal protection...to name a few. Shooting is a sport you know, ever watch the olympics?
You missed one. Shooting people when you're mad because we can.
Yeah, ok Jason. Because we couldnt just use a knife or blunt object. Okay......
http://www.guncite.com/gcgvsupp.html
The gun must have made him do it.........
A little bit off the debate, but I am a student of Dawson College and I felt like sharing my experience. It was one of the scarier moments of my life to know someone was on a shooting rampage and at any moment I could have found myself face to face with a killer while running out of the school. Fortunately I made it out safely, but unfortunately the only casualty happened to be someone I know...out of 10 000 people. I mean it's equaly unfortunate to lose anyone, but it's a different experience when you knew the person.
What I know about this Kimveer Gill from numerous news-castings is that he obtained all of his guns legally. Previously Being in the military probably facilitated his obtainment of rifles, pistols, and shotguns.
JasonRox
Sep18-06, 05:51 PM
Yeah, ok Jason. Because we couldnt just use a knife or blunt object. Okay......
http://www.guncite.com/gcgvsupp.html
You can hunt with a knife, etc...
What are you even talking about? Use a knife to hunt.......does that even sound reasonable when you say it outloud?
However taking the long view it appears that the gun supply does not have a significant impact on total homicides or suicides. (Since 1945 the handgun per capita rate has risen by over 350% and over 260% for all firearms.)
So, what was that you were saying?........
This entire notion of taking away guns to make the world safe is lunacy.
A culture of violence, which we have in America, is to blame. We have the highest crime rate in the entire world. NOT by guns, but OVERALL. THAT is the problem. So enough of this 'take away guns, take away guns' nonsense..:uhh:
Most guns are used in self defense.
Harder to get away with murder these days. Deters a lot of people.
A little off topic, but noted poker writer David Sklansky in his book "Poker, Gaming and Life" opines that it is not the people that actually kill people that are to be despised, for they are sick (they would have to be to make such a terribly negative expected value decision). He says it is the people who would kill, but are afraid of the consequences, that are truly the most despicable people in the world.
I tend to agree.
Did you see the FBI chart I linked to?
This crap about more guns = more violence is flat out FALSE!
Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all
guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem
of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset
of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general
population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem.
http://rkba.org/research/kleck/point-blank-summary
Yes that is what I am getting at. It's not the gun that gets up by itself and decides to go on a rampage....it's the idiot using it. If guns were banned it would be just as easy for them to poison (but thats not as flashy), make a bomb, throw knives....ect. Yes guns are dangerous in the wrong hands but unfortunately so are a lot of things.
Guns make it much easier though. Way more damage can be caused with little skill or practice by someone with a gun than someone with a bunch of knives.
It would be impossible for Canada to get rid of guns. I think I know more people with guns than without, but I don't know a single person who owns a gun for protection from other people. Hunting, trap/target shooting, and general rural use (rabid animals, pest control, opening cans, doorstops), or self defense in the bush, but not for protection from other people. Only the target shooters have handguns, and these are olympic style ones that stay locked in cases when not in use.
Homicides commited with guns has been dropping drastically in the US. If "more guns equals more murders", why the astounding drop?
Notice anything about the huge spike in gun homicides in the late 80's through early 90's commited by the age group 14-24? Notice this spike coincides with "gangsta rap"? I thought that was interesting.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1595/weapagepa4.gif
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
Homicides commited with guns has been dropping drastically in the US. If "more guns equals more murders", why the astounding drop?
Notice anything about the huge spike in gun homicides in the late 80's through early 90's commited by the age group 14-24? Notice this spike coincides with "gangsta rap"? I thought that was interesting.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1595/weapagepa4.gif
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
It's like I said, it's more of a cultural problem than 'gun's themselves. Thanks for the data. :tongue:
JasonRox
Sep18-06, 07:46 PM
http://rkba.org/research/kleck/point-blank-summary
Um... that's still VERY large.
It says well under %1, so let's say it's 0.5%. That's well under 1%, in fact it's half of it!
From the comment above, it says that most people have like on average 5 guns in the household. Let's assume there are 100 000 000 (100 million) homes in the US. I took 300 million divided by 3. Lots of people live single/double and in families, so I took rough guess dependent on that.
That means we have 500 000 000 guns in households alone! (Some people have more or less than 5 guns in their homes based on the reply above.)
Multiply that by 0.05 (5%) and we get 25 000 000 (25 million) guns involved in a crime! That certainly is a lot of crimes for one piece of equipment.
Now, let's assume that only in 50% of those cases the gun was actually shot. We now have 12 500 000 (12.5 million) cases where the gun was shot. Now, let's take another 50% for the cases that someone actually got wounded and that leaves us with 6 250 000 (6.25 million) cases where someone got wounded by a particular gun! Let's call these minor wounds.
Cutting off another 50% for serious wounds! We get 3 125 000 cases of serious wounds by a particular gun! Now, let's assume that it cost only $5000 to provide surgery and care (this is a VERY small amount compared to the actual cost). It would cost about 15 625 000 000 (15.6 billion) dollars for hospital bills!!! I'm not even including the cost of the minor wounds, justice system, time of police officers, etc... meanwhile only charging $5000 for surgery and care where it's probably more like $25 000 and that comes out to 78 125 000 000 (78.1 billion) dollars. So, it impacts the economy in a big way. You decide whether it's a good way or not. Be aware that during recovery they are not working, which I would consider not good for the economy.
Anyways, let's move on. Let's now take 50% of the serious wounds where someone actually gets killed. Therefore, 1 562 500 million people get killed! That's a large number! Sure not this many people get killed every year, but we can assume this many people get killed by guns every 10 years! (If we make the time span larger than 10 years, then we have to start considering the fact that guns are being made every year too.)
Therefore, 1 562 500 million people get killed!
In case you missed that.
Now, let's assume it cost $10 000 each for the funeral. So, that has an impact of 15 625 000 000 (15.6 billion) dollars! That's a lot of money.
Adding that up with the seriously wounded, we get 93.7 billion dollars. Now, round it up to 100 billion dollars to cover minor wounds and justice services.
Now, let's assume that out of the 1.5625 million people who died, at least 50% were going to live the next 10 years or more and the other half only 5 years. Heart attack or whatever reason.
Assume the average income of all of them was $25 000 a year. That's not a lot, but I have to consider the bias of those who are involved in guns might be more likely to be living in poverty (I don't stand by this bias opinion, but I'm adding it in because some people might argue it. Also, it makes the number smaller. So, if you don't want to be bias, I'd be happy not to be too.:tongue: )
Ok, since half are working for 10 years, we have 390 625 000 000 (390.6 billion) dollars of income for that half of people who died! Wow, that's a lot of cash.
Now, for the other half we get 195 312 500 000 (195.3 billion) dollars!
For the seriously wounded, we will assume that they were not capable of working for 6 months. Using the same salary, we get 19 531 250 000 (19.5 billion) dollars.
So, now income versus expenses (from above) gives us 609.9 - 100 = 509.9 billion dollars!!!
Wow, that's a big impact on the economy. Not sure about you, but that's a lot of cash. Maybe not compared to the national debt, but I'm sure Bush would love to have that disposable income.
It's affecting you in two negative ways. First, lots of people get injured and die. Second, the economy get affected.
Of course, it's in your CONSTITUTION. You have the RIGHT to have a gun. Just because you have the right to have gun, does not mean you should exercise that right or even keep it. It's a stupid thing to have in my opinion. What if they discovered a missing piece to the constitution, and it said, you can commit rape. It's YOUR right to rape someone. Should you exercise it? Obviously NOT!
You have no use for a gun besides things like law enforcement (which is not done in your home so can't use that as an excuse), military (also not in your home), hunting (not that many people hunt compared to the whole population and besides you can rent if you only hunt once a year or once in a lifetime), etc... where do we need a gun? Hmmm...
Note: The calculations are definitely crude, but keep in mind, I was cutting each number in HALF.
JasonRox
Sep18-06, 07:54 PM
In 2001, firearms were used in 63% of homicides, and 49% of homicides were committed with a handgun (78% of firearm homicides were committed with a handgun). (For a breakdown of weapon types used, see page 23 of the 2001 FBI Uniform Crime Report [1995-2001 FBI UCR's]). Although still unacceptably high, the U.S. homicide rate reached a 30 year low of 5.6 per 100,000 in 2001.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
63% of homicides are by firearms.
What if there were very little firearms? Possibly in those cases when harm wanted to be inflicted, they wouldn't get killed. Hence, bringing down the total homicides down and the percentage of homicides by firearms dramatically down.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
63% of homicides are by firearms.
What if there were very little firearms? Possibly in those cases when harm wanted to be inflicted, they wouldn't get killed. Hence, bringing down the total homicides down and the percentage of homicides by firearms dramatically down.
You are looking at a single year, so what? I just showed you a trend that guns have increased by 360% and crime rate has not rised significantly.
Although still unacceptably high, the U.S. homicide rate reached a 30 year low of 5.6 per 100,000 in 2001.
I just showed you data that answers specifically your statements, not just any ole stat from any arbitrary year.
Did you see the link to the graph right below what you quoted?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/homage.gif
JasonRox
Sep18-06, 08:02 PM
You are looking at a single year, so what? I just showed you a trend that guns have increased by 360% and crime rate has not rised significantly.
I just showed you data that answers specifically your statements, not just any ole stat from any arbitrary year.
Did you see the link to the graph right below what you quoted?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/homage.gif
Um... there is a downward trend? That trend ended.
What, do you not see the black line?
I just gave you the graph about your comments.
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9813/gsupplyxf3.gif
What is there left to debate? Are you saying the FBI data is wrong?
I have shown you what the data says, but you choose not to believe it.
What if there were very little firearms? Possibly in those cases when harm wanted to be inflicted, they wouldn't get killed. Hence, bringing down the total homicides down and the percentage of homicides by firearms dramatically down.
Sigh.............................................. ..You are talking about 2% of all guns used in homicide............taking away guns from the masses is pointless...how is this not clear to you?
Do you take all cars off the road beacause 2% are drunk drivers that kill people?
Um... that's still VERY large.
It says well under %1, so let's say it's 0.5%. That's well under 1%, in fact it's half of it!
From the comment above, it says that most people have like on average 5 guns in the household. Let's assume there are 100 000 000 (100 million) homes in the US. I took 300 million divided by 3. Lots of people live single/double and in families, so I took rough guess dependent on that.
That means we have 500 000 000 guns in households alone! (Some people have more or less than 5 guns in their homes based on the reply above.)
So what? What's your point of this? Yes, people own guns. Where do you think those guns are kept? Why are you so scared of people owning guns?
Arg, that post is way too long, and filled with way too much junk to comment fully. Stop making up arguments. Did you pull every number out of thin air? That was absurd!
Of course, it's in your CONSTITUTION. You have the RIGHT to have a gun. Just because you have the right to have gun, does not mean you should exercise that right or even keep it
You should learn what it means to have your rights taken away from you, hint hint: what YOU are trying to do here. Read what you just wrote, does that make sense to you? Just because you have a right does not mean you should exercise it or even keep it........so what should I do with it, hang it on a wall read what my 'rights' really arnt? :rofl:...........aye caramba.
Bystander
Sep18-06, 08:30 PM
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/forum/forum3_Art2.pdf#search=%22%22global%20homicide%20r ate%22%22
See p. 43 --- U.S. homicide rate is about equal to global average homicide rate --- with the usual caveats regarding comparisons of statistics from a variety of jurisdictions and sources. The U.S. is NOT a more violent society than the rest of the world. The U.S. does NOT have an unusual homicide rate.
Even better! (But I do know it does have the highest overall crime rate of the industrialized world).
Bystander
Sep18-06, 08:37 PM
"... overall highest reported crime rate ...."
selfAdjoint
Sep18-06, 09:41 PM
I'm with cyrusabdollahi. The proposition that number of guns owned is correlated with number of handgun crimes is refuted by the FBI statistics; you can't explain a steady or declining trend by a linearly increasing one, any more you can do it the other way around.
On the other hand the US does have a high overall crime rate. Are there any correlations between the occurence of handgun crimes with occurrence of crimes of all kinds?
More importantly, how many of those guns used in crimes are legal? If those guns are illegal, how does stopping citizens from legal ownership solve the problem? It does not.
Bystander
Sep18-06, 09:56 PM
"Overall crime rate?" Between insurance claims, "casualty and theft losses" on income tax forms, and who knows what other bookkeeping tricks there are, might be a bit difficult to establish a "real" rate for crimes against property to compare to a "reported" rate for crimes against property. Sticking to "violent" crime rates, crimes against other people, there's nothing all that statistically unusual.
Overall as in both violent and nonviolent crimes. That was the first thing my criminal justice professor told us when I took the course.
The unreported figures you speak of is called the 'dark figure of crime.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_figure_of_crime
Bystander
Sep18-06, 10:06 PM
--- and, "non-violent" crime I'm taking to be crimes against property rather than counting all the PC misdemeanors like smoking in bars and poolrooms --- if that nonsense is showing up in the stats, it's no wonder.
Yes, property crimes, all 'white collar' crimes.
White collar crimes make up more damages than all violent crimes, by far.
Bystander
Sep18-06, 10:13 PM
Come to think of it, there are a boatload of traffic cases that fall into the felony category, DUI & DWI depending upon jurisdiction, speeding violations in excess of "blank" over the limit --- far as comparing U.S. to global "overall," probably have to subtract traffic felonies as being culture specific.
This has turned into blimming Cluedo :surprised
It was in the kitchen with some poison...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Guns are bad. Kids are being brought up on gun cultures - whether on the news, in video games or with their parent's pastime.
Anttech
Sep19-06, 02:58 AM
So why stop at guns? Why not liberalise all weapons, apart from Weapons of mass destruction? Like Grenades, rocket launchers, gun ships. etc etc
These can also be used responsibly by adults in the context of "sport" After all it would only be the same "nutters" who would use these weapons to kill people, the same as with guns. Apart from gun ships, any nutter with enough money could get a hold of a these weapons in the arms trade business, and perhaps even gun ships.
Just a thought
Fine by me.
Why anyone would want to buy grenades is beyond me.
Though having one's own aircraft carrier is somewhat appealing :biggrin:
Anttech
Sep19-06, 04:43 AM
Hey maybe we could meet up with our gun ships and do some 'sport' Perhaps we could put up some targerts and blow them up from 10Km away?
J77 let me know when you have your gunship and we will hook up :wink:
hahaha, because if you try to hunt deer with a rocket launcher all you'll get is a grease spot.
Aside from hunting, most people have guns either for a) home protection and b) the joy of shooting them.
As to a, a grenade would do little more than demolish your home, although it may be a hoot to play with one in an open field.
For home protection, all most people would need is a 12 gauge shotty. The mere sound of the home owner chambering a round would most likely cause an invader to wet his or her pants.
Hey maybe we could meet up with our gun ships and do some 'sport' Perhaps we could put up some targerts and blow them up from 10Km away?
J77 let me know when you have your gunship and we will hook up :wink:
Or you could take them to airshows, like people who own figther jets privately, do. So whats your point?
I guess you don't want to believe the data either.
Astronuc
Sep19-06, 06:22 AM
And now, something completely different.
Alternative to guns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP8Kah6vXsQ&NR
Anttech
Sep19-06, 06:28 AM
What exactly was the data saying? That although there is lots of violent crime in the US its decreasing, because everyone is so responsible with there weapons, or because the cops are better at their jobs. And yes guns are weapons They arent showers, nor are they cars, they are designed to kill. They kill indiscriminately, maybe not in our middle class environments where they are just used for "sport" (as if killing an animal that cant fire back is really a sport?). But in the poorer area's guns are used to kill humans.
What, did you not read about the part where I said 2% of all guns are ever used in an actual crime?
Sorry, you are making sweeping statements......get some facts.
They kill indiscriminately
What weapon does kill discriminantly? :rofl: Nice spin bucko.
Anttech
Sep19-06, 09:06 AM
What, did you not read about the part where I said 2% of all guns are ever used in an actual crime? So how does one tell if the police are doing a better job or gun users are more responsible, from that data?
So lets take that 2% and extrapolate a bit, if 100 people have guns then 2 are used in violent crimes, if you have 10,000,000 then 200,000 are used.
What weapon does kill discriminantly? Nice spin bucko.Spin? Its fact. That is why weapons are generally outlawed, and cars or showers or any other 'killer' arent :wink:
Anyway dont worry I wont infringe on your 'right to bear arms' I understand how much this right seems to mean to the average American. I just dont understand why you cant just accept that it makes America a more dangerous place to live. But if you prefer that, then thats also fine :smile:
So lets take that 2% and extrapolate a bit, if 100 people have guns then 2 are used in violent crimes, if you have 10,000,000 then 200,000 are used.
No, as Jason has already shown, you DO NOT extrapolate data.
That is why weapons are generally outlawed, and cars or showers or any other 'killer' arent
Last time I checked, weapons nor cars are outlawed.
a more dangerous place to live than where? The UK? Sudan? France? China?
The problem isn't the guns, it's the people. A gun is nothing but an instrument, a tool. It is the will of a person that kills.
If someone wants to commit murder, they'll do it with whatever means necessary. This includes guns, bats, knives, sharp sticks, cars, gasoline and a match... the list goes on.
The prevalence of violence in America is certainly a fascinating question, but I suspect the answer is more complex than the mere fact there is legal gun ownership.
If someone wants to commit murder, they'll do it with whatever means necessary. This includes guns, bats, knives, sharp sticks, cars, gasoline and a match... the list goes on.
Do you not think they would be more likely to carry out their plan of murdering someone if they have a gun on hand than if they have to forage in the bush for a suitable pointy stick?
It seems likely that the gun culture is both a symptom and a partial cause of an overall violent culture, no?
selfAdjoint
Sep19-06, 10:28 AM
Do you not think they would be more likely to carry out their plan of murdering someone if they have a gun on hand than if they have to forage in the bush for a suitable pointy stick?
It seems likely that the gun culture is both a symptom and a partial cause of an overall violent culture, no?
Can we get off speculations like this, which have been exposed at length and never go anywhere, and back to the facts of the case? What "seems likely" to one person seems unlikely to another and doesn't make any difference to the crime statistics anyway.
Can we get off speculations like this, which have been exposed at length and never go anywhere, and back to the facts of the case? What "seems likely" to one person seems unlikely to another and doesn't make any difference to the crime statistics anyway.
Happily, when people stop using the "anything can be used as a weapon to kill someone" argument. A gun is not a pointy stick, it's not a knife, it's not a car, and it's not a nerf baseball bat, it's a gun.
Bystander
Sep19-06, 10:47 AM
(snip)I just dont understand why you cant just accept that it makes America a more dangerous place to live. But if you prefer that, then thats also fine :smile:
Same reason Europeans and S. Americans can't just accept that soccer incites fans to violence. Talk about barbarism --- how many people die in soccer riots a year?
I just dont understand why you cant just accept that it makes America a more dangerous place to live.The fact is, the overwhelming majority of violent crime in the US is concentrated in large cities, specifically with populations of 1 million or more, and of those cities, mostly in inner city ghettos. I was looking over the statistics last night, but don't have access to them from work right now. The US is huge, the majority of the country has very low crime and is quite safe. I personally have never in my life gone into an inner city ghetto and can't imagine that I ever will.
Anttech
Sep19-06, 11:17 AM
Same reason Europeans and S. Americans can't just accept that soccer incites fans to violence. Talk about barbarism --- how many people die in soccer riots a year?
Less than by guns, fact.
Football hoollaganism isnt tolerated in Europe anymore, teams are fined vast amounts of money if their supporters riot. In the UK I cant think of any cases for a long time, as a matter of fact I cant think of any cases in Europe for a long time. I remember some Leeds United Fan being stabed in Istanbul a few years ago, but that wasnt at the actual game. If you want to broaden the scope of your arguement to include any Football Hooliganism gang banging then there would be a few more. But thats just gangbanging and not a lot to do with soccer inciting violence.
Perhaps in the 80's at games but since the inception of all seater stadiums and cctv cameras everywhere there hasnt been any deaths I can think of, at Football games. I have no idea about S.America.
Obviously you havent talked to many Europeans about the state of Hooliganism, its talked about in the media rather a lot, and we dont like it, and can safely admit that there were problems in the game, thus FIFA and UEFA started introducing the fining mechanisms and "say no to racism" etc etc... If we couldnt/didnt admit to ourselfs thier was a serious problem, we wouldnt have done anything about it :rolleyes: Admitting there is a problem is usually the first step in resolving that problem.
Anttech
Sep19-06, 11:19 AM
The fact is, the overwhelming majority of violent crime in the US is concentrated in large cities, specifically with populations of 1 million or more, and of those cities, mostly in inner city ghettos. I was looking over the statistics last night, but don't have access to them from work right now. The US is huge, the majority of the country has very low crime and is quite safe. I personally have never in my life gone into an inner city ghetto and can't imagine that I ever will.Cant argue with that.
Bystander
Sep19-06, 12:18 PM
Less than by guns, fact.
Yup --- and more than at trap and skeet shoots, pistol matches, Wimbledon (long range rifle), and other shooting sports. Just something about soccer balls.
Football hoollaganism isnt tolerated in Europe anymore, teams are fined vast amounts of money if their supporters riot. In the UK I cant think of any cases for a long time, as a matter of fact I cant think of any cases in Europe for a long time.
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1998/06/16/55.asp
It's not the soccer, Europe is a violent culture.
I remember some Leeds United Fan being stabed in Istanbul a few years ago, but that wasnt at the actual game. If you want to broaden the scope of your arguement to include any Football Hooliganism gang banging then there would be a few more. But thats just gangbanging and not a lot to do with soccer inciting violence.
Perhaps in the 80's at games but since the inception of all seater stadiums and cctv cameras everywhere there hasnt been any deaths I can think of, at Football games. I have no idea about S.America.
Obviously you havent talked to many Europeans about the state of Hooliganism, its talked about in the media rather a lot, and we dont like it, and can safely admit that there were problems in the game, thus FIFA and UEFA started introducing the fining mechanisms and "say no to racism" etc etc... If we couldnt/didnt admit to ourselfs thier was a serious problem, we wouldnt have done anything about it :rolleyes: Admitting there is a problem is usually the first step in resolving that problem.
You did see the Interpol-UN crime statistics link? U.S. homicide rate is equal to the world average. Are you suggesting that the U.S. be held to a higher standard? Since we don't have a history of soccer riots, and do have a history of gun ownership, we aren't being violent enough? Or, are we making you look even more violent? Europeans can't control themselves at soccer games, and the damn Yanks curb their impulses to kill when "satisfaction" is just a trigger pull away --- makes you look uncivilized?
It isn't the availability of weapons. It's the commitment of the citizenry to abide by law. Overall crime statistics for U.S. suggest it's a lower commitment; violent crime statistics for U.S. indicate "par" for the world. Gun ownership doesn't make the U.S. more violent than the world, doesn't make the U.S. more dangerous. Baptists running stoplines to make it to Wednesday night whatever at the church make it dangerous --- closest to getting killed in my life --- and that includes a year in a war zone.
Anttech
Sep19-06, 01:00 PM
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1998/06/16/55.asp
It's not the soccer, Europe is a violent culture.1998? Why not pull something from the real archives. As I said it isnt tolerated in Europe any more. :rolleyes:
You did see the Interpol-UN crime statistics link? U.S. homicide rate is equal to the world average. Are you suggesting that the U.S. be held to a higher standard? Since we don't have a history of soccer riots, and do have a history of gun ownership, we aren't being violent enough? Or, are we making you look even more violent? Europeans can't control themselves at soccer games, and the damn Yanks curb their impulses to kill when "satisfaction" is just a trigger pull away --- makes you look uncivilized?
I didnt actually attack you, or your country, I was attacking the concept legalised weapons. What is your excuse for inferring I am violent, and come from a violent culture? And more to the point, what has that got to do with legalised weapons? You really are the master of the strawman, and Ad hominem I have seen you do it so often.
It isn't the availability of weapons. It's the commitment of the citizenry to abide by law. Overall crime statistics for U.S. suggest it's a lower commitment; violent crime statistics for U.S. indicate "par" for the world. Gun ownership doesn't make the U.S. more violent than the world, doesn't make the U.S. more dangerous. Baptists running stoplines to make it to Wednesday night whatever at the church make it dangerous --- closest to getting killed in my life --- and that includes a year in a war zone. This is a forum, not a monologue, I cant understand your grammar, or more to the point, your lack of grammar.
I can't ever wrap my head around the concept of gun control. People keep thinking it's a good idea even when common sense practically slaps them in the face to say it doens't work.
Fact: handguns are illegal in Canada
Fact: handguns are not at all hard to find in Edmonton
If handguns are illegal, how the hell do these asian gang members all have handguns? A law obviously did nothing to stop the flow of guns. So where did they come from? Probably the US, but if the US makes handguns illegal, the guns will come from Iran, or Pakistan, or Mexico, or Russia. There will always be some country where handguns are easy to get and can be shipped over to Canada. If we can't stop the flow of guns, or even slow it down, we might as well not make it a crime to own one.
Due to recent changes in Canadian gun laws (registration), everybody I know is now an criminal because we own unregistered guns. I actually need to find foreign suppliers just for some damn bullets.
Gun Facts (http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf#search=%22gunfacts.pdf%22)
That reminds me of another slogan "if owning a gun is a crime only criminals will own guns". :biggrin:
If we can't stop the flow of guns, or even slow it down, we might as well not make it a crime to own one.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. How is not being able to keep handguns out of peoples hands a reason to take away legal deterrents for possesion?
Due to recent changes in Canadian gun laws (registration), everybody I know is now an criminal because we own unregistered guns. I actually need to find foreign suppliers just for some damn bullets.
So what's stopping you guys from registering your guns?
That reminds me of another slogan "if owning a gun is a crime only criminals will own guns". :biggrin:
That's exactly the problem. :wink:
One stat gun control advocates don't like to look at is the country of Switzerland. It's the most heavily armed country in the world by almost any standard you can throw at it, but their crime is not out of control. Why?
So what's stopping you guys from registering your guns?
The guns registry was one of the stupidest things ever...stupid liberals. It costs a fortune to register your guns, and for no real reason. Gee crime rate didn't go down and the criminals didnt register their guns, how suprising that it just turned out to be a waste of how many billion dollars. I'm so glad that the conservatives got rid of it....I believe now you still have to register handguns but you aren't required to register your rifles and shotguns.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. How is not being able to keep handguns out of peoples hands a reason to take away legal deterrents for possesion?
It's a reason to take away deterrents because those deterrents do nothing. Want a similar example of useless deterrents? The US war on drugs. Americans can get 10 years in jail for carrying a joint, yet marijuana is still a cultural icon and the vast majority of Americans have tried marijuana at least once.
By now you probably want to know my solution, and yes I have one. Make guns easy to buy, but require a simple background check. You go in to buy a gun, you give them your name and some other information, the store does a background check, when it comes up clear, they call you up and you pickup your gun. It's easy, it's fast, it does a simple check to make sure you're not crazy. They will not keep a record of which gun you purchased or how many bullets you bought. Criminals tend to buy their guns on the streets, so guns involved in crime wouldn't be tracable by gun registration anyway.
So how does this differ from the current setup we have? First off, the current setup requires you take a course. You sit in some stupid class for the better part of a day and you learn useless crap you'll never do such as "don't aim at people". If I wanted to learn how not to defend my home, I would simply destroy my gun. I should be taught to effectively aim at intruders and land kill shots, but no this is gun safety so we'll just skip the home defense portion. Secondly, the current setup requires you to tell them all the guns you own. I'm only against this because it has historically been the first step towards gun confiscation. Lastly, the current system has an anual fee. Why should I need to keep paying a fee to keep a gun I already paid for? Are they going to come to my house and confiscate my gun if I don't pay them? Probably not, but it suddenly becomes illegal for me to own my gun or buy bullets, which is total BS.
So what's stopping you guys from registering your guns?
Basically it boils down to the fact that I don't want my name to end up on a list of potential anything. Our current government is great, and I don't fear them, but what about tomorow? Will our next government be a bunch of fanatics who try to use the existing list as a list of people to take guns from and or kill? It happened in Germany. What if Canada was invaded by the US? Would the occupying army use that list to disarm the population?
These situations are extremely unlikely, but that doesn't mean they're impossible.
.I believe now you still have to register handguns but you aren't required to register your rifles and shotguns.
I don't know if you need to register them, but I think you still need an FAC license. That's the stupid training thing I mentioned in my previous post.
This is just a joke , so no one start asking for links to back up statistics. I just thought it went along with the topic. :biggrin:
US Gun Statistics
Various Sources
2-2-5
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm
Haha thats a good one EVO
I don't know if you need to register them, but I think you still need an FAC license. That's the stupid training thing I mentioned in my previous post.
FAC license? Is that an actual training course where you go to some sort of classroom and they teach you how to use guns because I have never heard of anyone having to do that....or maybe people are supposed to and just don't ....I don't know.
Bystander
Sep19-06, 04:43 PM
1998? Why not pull something from the real archives. As I said it isnt tolerated in Europe any more. :rolleyes:
http://english.people.com.cn/200406/17/eng20040617_146615.html
When's the next championship?
I didnt actually attack you, or your country, I was attacking the concept legalised weapons.
Without evidence.
What is your excuse for inferring I am violent, and come from a violent culture?
Same as yours for "attacking the concept of legalized weapons." Opinion is just that, opinion. Some opinions are based on experience, or other evidence; some are not. You've pointed at the homicide rate in the U.S. and blamed it on legalized firearm ownership; I've pointed at soccer violence and blamed it on a violent culture in Europe --- both are insupportable assertions of cause and effect.
And more to the point, what has that got to do with legalised weapons?
Your argument against the concept is groundless --- the homicide rate in the U.S. (legal firearms) is on par with the global homicide rate, and the fan violence rate at sporting events in the U.S. is far lower than that for the rest of the world. The U.S. is NOT a violent country, nor do legalized firearms contribute to an unusual level of violence in the country. This can be contrasted, again, to the adverse effect soccer balls have on human behavior elsewhere in the world.
(snip drivel) That, "(snip drivel)," is an ad hominem, as is the following: "Grammar;" People living in glass houses are best advised to not throw stones. In the second, I imply to the reader that your command of the language is less than comprehensive so that the reader may infer that same idea, devaluing your credibility in the forum. It is ad hominem when I attack you, and not ad hominem when I attack your arguments.
"Strawman (also straw-man) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man " arguments require that I misrepresent facts or arguments others present, then rebut the misrepresentation to make my case. Have I misrepresented your position?
I will repost this because when I tried to the servers messed up. My previous professor was big into guns. He goes shooting, and has taken students with him in the past. (Not as a class, but because those students were into guns as well). Turns out he goes shooting with the guy that owns my hobby shop.
I think everyone should learn how to shoot and hold a gun, so less people hurt themselves by accident. Lack of education can kill. (Just not by that DEA cop)
It's a reason to take away deterrents because those deterrents do nothing.
I have to disagree. It's not going to stop most criminals, but it will stop or at least make the honest and law-abiding people think twice before trying to get illegal firearms. There are enough irresponsible but otherwise law-abiding yobbo's out there that I'm happy they can't get handguns easily.
Basically it boils down to the fact that I don't want my name to end up on a list of potential anything. Our current government is great, and I don't fear them, but what about tomorow? Will our next government be a bunch of fanatics who try to use the existing list as a list of people to take guns from and or kill? It happened in Germany. What if Canada was invaded by the US? Would the occupying army use that list to disarm the population?
These situations are extremely unlikely, but that doesn't mean they're impossible.
I guess that's fair, very paranoid in my opinion. Doesn't justify breaking the law in my eyes though.
A little bit about the Swiss:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
Their culture is pretty different from Canada and the US. I'd imagine the mandatory military service involves not only extensive gun safety training but also training of the killing kind that you'd like. If everyone in Canada went through this kind of training, it would probably change many peoples views (mine at least).
Anttech
Sep19-06, 05:08 PM
"Strawman (also straw-man) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man " arguments require that I misrepresent facts or arguments others present, then rebut the misrepresentation to make my case. Have I misrepresented your position?By clever use of leading questions you attempted to, and I am sure many people would have seen and infered from your leading questions that I actually thought, " that the U.S. should be held to a higher standard?" or perhaps I thought "you werent being violent enough?"
(snip drivel) That, "(snip drivel)," is an ad hominem, as is the following: "Grammar;" People living in glass houses are best advised to not throw stones. In the second, I imply to the reader that your command of the language is less than comprehensive so that the reader may infer that same idea, devaluing your credibility in the forum. It is ad hominem when I attack you, and not ad hominem when I attack your arguments.It was actually some advice, because your monolog method of communication can be rather difficult to follow. No need to take offence, I for one find your "---'s" very difficult to comprehend.
Your argument against the concept is groundless --- the homicide rate in the U.S. (legal firearms) is on par with the global homicide rate, and the fan violence rate at sporting events in the U.S. is far lower than that for the rest of the world. The U.S. is NOT a violent country, nor do legalized firearms contribute to an unusual level of violence in the country. This can be contrasted, again, to the adverse effect soccer balls have on human behavior elsewhere in the world.I will presume you mean: 'the homicide rate in the U.S. using Legal firearms is on par with the global homicide rate."
Since firearms are so obtainable in the US, legally, that would have a direct influence on the amount of Illegal firearms, wouldnt it? So to not include all murders by firearms, would not paint the most balanced picture.
Same as yours for "attacking the concept of legalized weapons." Opinion is just that, opinion. Some opinions are based on experience, or other evidence; some are not. You've pointed at the homicide rate in the U.S. and blamed it on legalized firearm ownership; I've pointed at soccer violence and blamed it on a violent culture in Europe --- both are insupportable assertions of cause and effect.Glad you admitted that your opinion was baseless. I actually was inferring that since guns etc are so readly available it has cause the amount of murders by guns etc to increase. I was not inferring that "people who own guns legally are more likely to kill"
Anttech
Sep19-06, 05:25 PM
http://english.people.com.cn/200406/...17_146615.html
When's the next championship?Where are the deaths, you were inferring to?
I like this part, seems to correlate with what I was saying:
UEFA had warned the English Football Association that the national team could be banned from the tournament if fans cause trouble in Portugal.
The head of the British police force offering advice at Euro 2004 said the rioters were a disgrace but added that the incidents bore no signs of organized soccer hooliganism.
It's not going to stop most criminals, but it will stop or at least make the honest and law-abiding people think twice before trying to get illegal firearms.
Actually since they don't have a legal option, they'll be quicker to jump to the illegal option. If you can buy a gun at Walmart, you'll buy a gun at Walmart. If you need to buy it from a gun dealer, who's also probably a crack dealer, that's who you'll go to. Something like ebay is more my style, but not everybody knows how to use ebay.
Bystander
Sep19-06, 08:22 PM
By clever use of leading questions you attempted to, and I am sure many people would have seen and infered from your leading questions that I actually thought, " that the U.S. should be held to a higher standard?" or perhaps I thought "you werent being violent enough?"
At which point you say, "No," and "No," and state what you do mean. I asked if those were your intended meanings.
It was actually some advice, because your monolog method of communication can be rather difficult to follow. No need to take offence, I for one find your "---'s" very difficult to comprehend.
Tough.
I will presume you mean: 'the homicide rate in the U.S. using Legal firearms is on par with the global homicide rate."
You presume incorrectly --- read the Interpol-UN statistics link.
Since firearms are so obtainable in the US, legally, that would have a direct influence on the amount of Illegal firearms, wouldnt it?
Certainly not. Illegal firearms (automatic weapons, silenced weapons, and whatever else is included under the heading "illegal") are far more common per capita in N. Ireland than in the U.S..
So to not include all murders by firearms, would not paint the most balanced picture.
The Interpol-UN statistics INCLUDE all homicides; try reading the link. You are plucking "straw" from thin air to build your "straw-man."
Glad you admitted that your opinion was baseless. I actually was inferring that since guns etc
"etc" refers to baseball bats, knives, Col. Mustard in the kitchen with the lead pipe, and other implements of mayhem?
are so readly available it has cause the amount of murders by guns etc
Again, "etc" refers to homicides committed with instruments other than firearms?
to increase.
You keep trying to sneak around the Intepol-UN statistics. Brings up the question again, "Is a homicide rate that is equal to the global rate high?" And, the other question, "Are you applying a different standard to the U.S. than to the rest of the world?" Does it startle you that people who are expected to be responsible for their actions can behave responsibly?
I was not inferring that "people who own guns legally are more likely to kill"
Your penultimate sentence directly contradicts your final sentence.
Outlawing the kris, khukri, and kirpan is not going to reduce the homicide rates in Indonesia, Nepal, and India. Homicide is the result of human intent, not inanimate objects.
Anttech
Sep20-06, 01:09 AM
Tough.So obfuscating your argument is intentional?
Your penultimate sentence directly contradicts your final sentence.
"I actually was inferring that since guns etc are so readily available it has cause the amount of murders by guns etc to increase. I was not inferring that "people who own guns legally are more likely to kill""
There is no contradiction.
People who own guns legally are not more likely to kill, but since guns are more available legally, it follows that they would also be more available illegally.
Certainly not. Illegal firearms (automatic weapons, silenced weapons, and whatever else is included under the heading "illegal") are far more common per capita in N. Ireland than in the U.S..
Scraping the bottom of the barrel? In case you didnt know N.Ireland has had rather a lot of problems in recent years. There are as many as 10 large Militant terrorist groups there. N.Ireland also has a population <2 Million and to top it of N.Ireland is Not a country. Why not make a comparison between the Whole of the USA and Brixton in London? :rolleyes:
"etc" refers to baseball bats, knives, Col. Mustard in the kitchen with the lead pipe, and other implements of mayhem?No it refers to all types of Guns. You know automatic, hand.....
At which point you say, "No," and "No," and state what you do mean. I asked if those were your intended meanings.I dont answer leading questions, nor to I tolerate people trying to put words in my mouth, especially words that misrepresent my views.
To Recap:
You said, post #15:
However since you brought it up, I would say that it is a matter of how many people owe guns, the less who do the less chance that someone is going to get shot, by someone with a gun.
And you were wrong, as shown below.
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9813/gsupplyxf3.gif
Then you said:
What exactly was the data saying? That although there is lots of violent crime in the US its decreasing, because everyone is so responsible with there weapons, or because the cops are better at their jobs.
the data that shows you don't know what your talking about....
So lets take that 2% and extrapolate a bit, if 100 people have guns then 2 are used in violent crimes, if you have 10,000,000 then 200,000 are used.
Then you try to make up your own data....
"I actually was inferring that since guns etc are so readily available it has cause the amount of murders by guns etc to increase. I was not inferring that "people who own guns legally are more likely to kill""
Why did you bring this wrong statement back up to life? Did you not see the graph I provided?
People who own guns legally are not more likely to kill, but since guns are more available legally, it follows that they would also be more available illegally
How do you know? Got some data to back that up?
Please explain shawnD's comments about switzerland, which further shows how wrong your argument is? (And try to avoid opinion and speculation, which you have been doing to no end so far)
JasonRox
Sep20-06, 11:24 AM
Guess what?!
You won't believe what happened just like 30 minutes ago.
The police, fire department and whatever lab stuff swarmed our school!
Check it out... http://www.brocku.ca
They found threatening letters with white powder in them. They are testing it out with the obvious test of whether or not it is Anthrax.
Anyways, I'm at school doing nothing. The TV crew and all them are here. It's starting to rain, so that's going to suck for the officers outside.
Doesnt that show you that guns are not the problem? ...:uhh:
Guess what?!
You won't believe what happened just like 30 minutes ago.
The police, fire department and whatever lab stuff swarmed our school!
Check it out... http://www.brocku.ca
They found threatening letters with white powder in them. They are testing it out with the obvious test of whether or not it is Anthrax.
Anyways, I'm at school doing nothing. The TV crew and all them are here. It's starting to rain, so that's going to suck for the officers outside.The world is so full of crazy people. Keep us updated Jason. Don't sniff the white stuff, k?
JasonRox
Sep20-06, 11:32 AM
The world is so full of crazy people. Keep us updated Jason. Don't sniff the white stuff, k?
But what if it's goo... :tongue:
So, our school will be on TV tonight for sure especially after what happened just last week. That's crazy publicity for us.
JasonRox
Sep20-06, 11:33 AM
Doesnt that show you that guns are not the problem? ...:uhh:
Um... Nope.
Then you have not learned a thing in this thread.
JasonRox
Sep20-06, 11:51 AM
Then you have not learned a thing in this thread.
The reason why I say is because not all crazy people can obtain biological "weapons" and such. Therefore, some resort to simple things like a knife and injure or kill one person.
On the other hand, in the US, a crazy person does not need to get biological "weapons" to kill lots of people. They easily buy a gun and shoot away.
On the other hand, in the US, a crazy person does not need to get biological "weapons" to kill lots of people. They easily buy a gun and shoot away.
I would like to see some data on how many people buy a gun for the sole purpose of shooting away, as you say. Need I remind you why this thread was started, because a CANADIAN shot at kids?
Anttech
Sep20-06, 12:05 PM
How do you know? Got some data to back that up?
Took me under 1 minute on google..
The Clinton administration BATF study of illegal firearms in the black market estimated that as many as 4 million illegal fully automatic firearms had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA. No new legal full-autos have been manufactured for the civilian population since 1986, causing the economic rules of supply and demand to drive the prices of existing automatic weapons well above the cost of manufacturing and distributing them, making it impractical for most Americans to afford a legal automatic firearm even if they do legally qualify for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States
AMERICANS FOR GUN SAFETY FOUNDATION REPORT SHOWS
170,000 FIREARMS STOLEN EVERY YEAR WASHINGTON -- 1,695,482 firearms have been reported stolen to police since 1993, and they are frequently used in later crimes, according to a report released today by Americans for Gun Safety Foundation (AGSF).
http://w3.agsfoundation.com/press_121702.htm
Are you seriously going to claim that making a Object (any object) legal to own is going to decrease the circulation of that said object?
As for ShawnD’s argument, IMHO you cant compare Swizerland and the US. It would be more akin to comparing violent crime in the more afluent areas of the US compared to the Ghetos of NY. As Evo said, and I aggree with, the US is huge, and it has many faces (paraphrasing). Most Violent crime is in the Larger cities and usually in the poorer area’s. Swizerland doesn’t have that problem. The US does, so its feable comparrison, but convient for you, as it allows you not to think about the circulation driven by the legalisation of weapons, and point blankly claim “There isnt a problem”
Took me under 1 minute on google..What has that got to do with what Cyrus asked you?
You said People who own guns legally are not more likely to kill, but since guns are more available legally, it follows that they would also be more available illegally
So Cyrus asked How do you know? Got some data to back that up?
And you answer The Clinton administration BATF study of illegal firearms in the black market estimated that as many as 4 million illegal fully automatic firearms had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA.
Please explain to me how legal weapons made and sold here in the US increased the number of guns that had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA. :confused:
That right there is the reason making gun ownership illegal only takes them away form non-criminals. Criminals and crazy people will still get guns illegally.
Anttech
Sep20-06, 12:34 PM
Why are you selectively quoting me?
Please explain to me how legal weapons made and sold here in the US increased the number of guns that had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA.
I honestly dont know how to "show you how legal weapons made and sold here in the US increased the number of guns that had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA" As I wasnt asserting that.
Edit: But I think I can answer that anyway: IMO if you have the infrastructure in place already to sell weapons, then it is easier to introduce black and grey area weapons into the mix. If you dont have that infrastructure already it would be more difficult to introduce the weapons. Basic Buisness 101
The link you have a problem with was to show how many Illegal firearms are in circulation, the next (which was ignored) was to show how many are stolen in one area, per year. Probably the first link is redundant to this argument, but I just wanted to show how many Illegal automatic weapons were in circulation.
The second link I provided is more relevent to this argument, as it shows how many are stolen each year. If you have a lot of legal weapons in circulation many are going to get stolen, and thus the amount of Illegal weapons is going to increase, Right?????
Seems like I am talking to a brick wall here, ohh well.
Bystander
Sep20-06, 12:49 PM
The reason why I say is because not all crazy people can obtain biological "weapons" and such. Therefore, some resort to simple things like a knife and injure or kill one person.(snip)
Curious assertion given the USDA, FDA, state boards of health, water quality regulations, and all the other social constructs in place to keep us all from killing each other accidentally. http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/food_poisoning/stats.htm
Seventy to eighty million food poisoning cases a year, and five thousand deaths in spite of efforts to control the problem would suggest that the availability of biological "weapons" is universal. Biological assaults probably don't provide the gratification or sense of accomplishment one feels from crushing someone's larynx between the thumbs, and that may explain the small number of reports of such crimes; "died after prolonged illness" isn't the sort of thing a DA can have a coroner present to a grand jury and expect to get an indictment, either. Under-reported in the homicide statistics? Maybe --- "killing's too quick" animosities do exist between people.
Yes, guns are stolen, but if we make the purchase of guns illegal, the blackmarket trade of illegally imported and manufactured guns is going to take off like wildfire.
A friend of mine is into these types of issues and told me about this.
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness."
Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?
John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.
Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent."
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
I read somewhere (sorry that I don't have the link), that when it became really easy in Arizona to obtain a CCW (conceal carry weapons permit), crime went down drastically. This was due to criminals not being certain whether or not a certain individual was carrying or not.
I read somewhere (sorry that I don't have the link), that when it became really easy in Arizona to obtain a CCW (conceal carry weapons permit), crime went down drastically. This was due to criminals not being certain whether or not a certain individual was carrying or not.Yes, that's been proven.
If you walk into a place knowing that everyone could be carrying a gun, you are less likely to pull out a gun and commit a crime. If you believe that you are the only one with a gun, you are VERY likely to pull out a gun, thinking you have the advantage. That's why gun control empowers the criminal.
The Clinton administration BATF study of illegal firearms in the black market estimated that as many as 4 million illegal fully automatic firearms had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA.
The link you have a problem with was to show how many Illegal firearms are in circulation, the next (which was ignored) was to show how many are stolen in one area, per year. Probably the first link is redundant to this argument, but I just wanted to show how many Illegal automatic weapons were in circulation.
The second link I provided is more relevent to this argument, as it shows how many are stolen each year. If you have a lot of legal weapons in circulation many are going to get stolen, and thus the amount of Illegal weapons is going to increase, Right?????
See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
If it was illegal to own an assult weapon (94'-04'), explain to me how someone would steal it and use it in a crime, if we are to put any weight into your quoted source (data from 97' -which falls within the 10 year ban period)?
Anttech
Sep21-06, 01:32 AM
Theft (also known as stealing) is, in general, the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
You can still steal something that isnt legal. I suppose I am going to have to define every word I use, because you have no ability to comprehend my argument, instead all you seem to be able to do, is talk aggressively, and call me names.
That graph seems to be made up by a guncite to strenthen its case. I followed the link you posted (which I had done already) but couldnt find any link to the DATA its meaningless without the DATA. Under the graph, it says:
"Source: Data points from Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997, and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. (Handgun homicide rate became available in 1966.)"
The FBI link sends you here ---> http://www.fbi.gov/ucr.htm
Not Found
The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it. Please inform the site administrator of the referring page.
Without showing how the data behind your graph was accumulated it is just a picture. You are basing your whole argument around this picture, yet you have failed to link the DATA which was used to form this picture.
So basically, your first point, has nothing at all to do with your second point. <rant>..
Well it does. IMO (For the second time) if you have the infrastructure for weapons sale to the General Public, there are less barriers to getting your product to market. Your Distribution channels are open already. This makes it far easier to get Black and Grey area weapons into the market. If you didnt have this infrastructure in place already it would be far harder to get these weapons into circulation.
Myself, Evo, ShawnD, and Bystandard have all given you data. When are you going to cough something up? You are long over due.
Evo has given data.
shawnD didnt give data, but had some valid points, which I refuted*
Bystander also didnt give any data, but gave his opinion
You have given a picture from a pro gun www site.
*on that, I was not dismissing what has happened in Switerland, I am saying there is NO comparision between America and Swizterland. Switzerlands population is under 8 Million and it doesn’t have the same inner-city problems like America does. Its not a good comparision, or a good place for America to base it policies on. It’s a small country that is up a mountain, with a Huge financial sector, lots of money. Its just not a good comparison, just like N.Ireland is not. If you used South Africa, or Brasil, or the UK, or China, or Japan it would be much better. These countries have Large cities with ghetos
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1621
Unfortunately this is based on the unfounded belief that the more guns in an area the more violence will occur. If that were true, the United States, with 280 million guns today, should have a far higher murder rate than after WWII when we had only 48 million guns. Instead, the murder rate is the same.
In the last 30 years the number of guns owned by civilians more than doubled, yet murder declined by one third.
In a study published last December, the National Academy of Sciences, having reviewed 43 government publications, 253 journal articles, 99 books, and its own research, could not identify even one example of gun control that reduced murder or violent crime.
Drastically increasing homicide led Washington, D.C., to ban handguns in the 1970s. So useless was this that D.C. soon had (and continues to have) some of the nation’s highest murder rates.
Anti-gun advocacy is built on decades of erroneous claims that the United States, with the world's highest gun ownership rate (true), has the highest murder rate (false). Russia’s recently disclosed murder rates since 1965 have consistently exceeded U.S. rates despite Russia’ ban of handguns and strict control of long guns. Since the 1990s Russian murder rates have remained almost four times greater than American.
Anti-gun advocates used to compare the United States to England, Canada and Australia, nations specially selected because they once combined low violence rates with severe gun controls. But gun controls and initially low violence rates did not prevent their violent crime rates from steadily outpacing ours in recent decades. Although these nations banned and confiscated hundreds of thousands of guns in the 1990s, today their violence rates are among the highest in the world—more than twice ours.
If more guns mean more violence, nations with high gun-ownership rates should have high murder rates. But two international studies comparing gun ownership with murder rates in 36 and 21 nations (respectively) found “no significant correlations.”
Norway, with the highest gun ownership rate in Western Europe, has the lowest murder rate—far below England's.only European nation that bans all guns, Luxembourg, has the highest murder rate (except for Russia): 30 percent higher than the U.S. and ten times that of gun-dense Norway. Holland, with Western Europe's lowest rate of gun ownership, has a 50 percent higher murder rate than Norway. Greece has much higher gun ownership than the Czech Republic but much less murder. Finland has 14 times more gun ownership than neighboring Estonia but much lower murder rates.
In 2004, Oxford University Press published Can Gun Control Work? by New York University criminologist James Jacobs who feels "The most unrealistic control policy for the United States is prohibition of private ownership of firearms or of just handguns” This “serves no useful purpose and only fans the flames of a culture war between gun owners and gun controllers, who in fighting with one another forget that the violent crime problem is the source of our concern."
About that problem Florida State criminologist Gary Kleck, another scholar who once believed guns cause murder, writes: "Fixating on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all-pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism."
These are all criminologists, not pro-gun groups.
Anttech
Sep21-06, 01:48 PM
Quote:
Well it does. IMO (For the second time) if you have the infrastructure for weapons sale to the General Public, there are less barriers to getting your product to market. Your Distribution channels are open already. This makes it far easier to get Black and Grey area weapons into the market. If you didnt have this infrastructure in place already it would be far harder to get these weapons into circulation.
So prove it.
This is basic MBA material, barriers to market entry. How do you me want to prove that, its a 'marketing theory'? Can you not see by making something illegal is a barrier to get that said something to market, in the white gray or black market?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry
# Government regulations may make entry more difficult or impossible. In the extreme case, a government may make competition illegal and establish a statutory monopoly. Requirements for licenses and permits, for example, may raise the investment needed to enter a market.
*on that, I was not dismissing what has happened in Switerland, I am saying there is NO comparision between America and Swizterland. Switzerlands population is under 8 Million and it doesn’t have the same inner-city problems like America does. Its not a good comparision, or a good place for America to base it policies on. It’s a small country that is up a mountain, with a Huge financial sector, lots of money. Its just not a good comparison, just like N.Ireland is not. If you used South Africa, or Brasil, or the UK, or China, or Japan it would be much better. These countries have Large cities with ghetos.
You said:
Quote:
However since you brought it up, I would say that it is a matter of how many people owe guns, the less who do the less chance that someone is going to get shot, by someone with a gun.I honestly dont see the connection between these two points I made. One is refuting the comparrison between Switzerland and the US on Gun regulation. The other is asserting, (paraphrasing) The less Guns you have in ciruclation the less chance you will statistically from being shot by a gun. Really its not that difficult a concept to grasp.
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe its just me, but I think it's a little bit hard to steal illegal firearms from legal owners, no????
Please specifiy EXACTLY where I assert that... I didnt. Just to clairfy (before you once again attempt to build a strawman) I DID NOT ASSERT THAT ANYWHERE. Clear enough for you? You drew the wrong conclusion from my post. Regardless, a legal owner can also have an Illegal firearm.
Well, you just said so yourself in this very post, look what you wrote just above this sentence.
Quote:
You can still steal something that isnt legal.
You said it, not me.
"Steeling an illegal <object> from a person who has the same <object> but legally", does not have the same meaning as "You can steal something that isnt legal."
You attempted to postion me as stating that "people were steal illegal firearms from legal owners" Again its a very simple difference.
How can you steal something from someone who can't own it legally in the first place? You can't, because no one can have it other than law enforcement...so, like I said, your data was pointless to your argument. Are you saying those 4 million weapons were stolen from police stations around the country? come on I already linked you to the definition of theft.
Here is another definition:
the act of taking something from someone unlawfully; "the thieving is awful at Kennedy International" http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theft
This thread is going nowhere.. You keep trying to put words in my mouth.
Ok, I'm going to have to do some cleanup here, but it will have to wait until tonight. I see where issues got confused. Let's not flame. Anttech I see where Cyrus misunderstood the source of some of the things you said.
Anttech
Sep21-06, 02:09 PM
Well At least you are posting some decent stuff now, not pictures :)
Granted, I will accept that Murder rates have more to do with Poverty, and weak policing and corruption, as is the case in Russia. However the there are some rather interesting comparrisons there, have you any idea of the size and population of luxembourgh? Its 400,000. How on earth can you compare a small dutchy like that to the USA >200,000,000 people? Any statistics you contrive would be warped by sheer scaling. Norway is the richest country in Europe, and one of the richest in the world. The middle classes dont typically go around killing each other, so again I dont think it is a good comparisson.
I do actually believe that it would be pointless to outlaw weapons in America now, because of the sheer volume of weapons there, its part of your culture now, and banning them would probably have a worse effect, as more would go underground. That being said, what works for you doesnt work everywhere. So keep your guns... But stop making these comparrisons between countries that are completely alien to America.
The fact you do have a high murder rate in the inner-cities is not only because of the availiabilty of guns (black and white market) but also because these people are also far poorer.
To conclude I still stand by everything I said in this thread, but after look at all the evidence I do not believe that the crinimisation of weapons ue would have a positive effect in your country. I dont think that it is a universal truth, and what goes on on your doorsteps is vastly different than what goes on on mine.
Here is an interesting read: http://www.secondamendmentcenter.org/debate5.asp
Too long to quote it all, but it talks about each of your points in terms of countries.
*source from Ohio State University.
This is basic MBA material, barriers to market entry. How do you me want to prove that, its a 'marketing theory'? Can you not see by making something illegal is a barrier to get that said something to market, in the white gray or black market?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry
The problem with this example is that barriers disproportionately stop people from getting things; that means criminals get more access than noncriminals.
Take an extreme example here. Have you ever seen it on the news where police display all the things they found in a drug raid, and they find things like grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, and big bags of heroin? All of these things are illegal under any circumstance, but the fact remains that criminals have access to them (mafia connections). Making grenades and rocket launchers illegal means the mafia has grenades and rocket launchers (still fewer than if they were legal), while you are left with no grenades and no rocket launchers.
This is just an example of how barriers work. I don't think grenades or rockets should be legal since that sort of crosses the line between deterrence and craziness.
Anttech
Sep22-06, 01:16 AM
The problem with this example is that barriers disproportionately stop people from getting things; that means criminals get more access than noncriminals.
Take an extreme example here. Have you ever seen it on the news where police display all the things they found in a drug raid, and they find things like grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, and big bags of heroin? All of these things are illegal under any circumstance, but the fact remains that criminals have access to them (mafia connections). Making grenades and rocket launchers illegal means the mafia has grenades and rocket launchers (still fewer than if they were legal), while you are left with no grenades and no rocket launchers.
This is just an example of how barriers work. I don't think grenades or rockets should be legal since that sort of crosses the line between deterrence and craziness.
Well yes, if something is illegal, then a criminal will have more access (than a non-criminal), but the circulation of that there said object will decrease overall. So in theory even the criminals will have less, than before. When you destroy the infrastructure to distribute anything, its circulation will decrease.
Anyway its neither here nor there when sieting the USA, since there is a vast number of firearms (legal and illegal) already in circulation, it would be impossible to rain them in. However for other countries this methodology works, so again you cant compare. I still believe that America has a problem with a high murder rate within the inner-cities, but its a complex problem, and the high circulation of firearms is only one factor that should be considered.
selfAdjoint
Sep22-06, 07:24 AM
Well yes, if something is illegal, then a criminal will have more access (than a non-criminal), but the circulation of that there said object will decrease overall. So in theory even the criminals will have less, than before. When you destroy the infrastructure to distribute anything, its circulation will decrease
Gee, I wondered why our drug problem had just gone away!
Anttech
Sep22-06, 08:46 AM
Gee, I wondered why our drug problem had just gone away!
:rolleyes:
Drugs are much easier to make and distribute than weapons are.
1 vat of xtc can produce enough pills to for a long time, people make the stuff in there kitchen, same as cocaine. (I can give you links, but not know because I am at work) if you cant wait google for "ecstasy production"
People get addictred to drugs and need to sustain there habits (regular consumption).
If you have a situation like in the UK where both Guns and Drugs are banned, you will see that the circulation of Drugs is huge but the circulation of weapons is not. People dont tend to go to street corners for a "gun" fix.
Anyway I said the circulation will decrease if something is illegal, not go away. If you look at the Netherlands where most xtc is made for the world, you will find that due to there liberalisation of drug laws there is more drugs being made and in circulation there. I live in Amsterdam for 5 years, I saw it with my own eyes. Also I would say that the UK has a far worse drug problem than the US, its not something to be proud of it just is like that, maybe its because we cant get guns and turn to drugs instead?
Anyway there maybe an argument for legalising drugs, it would take it out of the black market and into the "white" market so Johnson and Johnson and the likes can make even more money than they currently do. More power to the corporation, because we can all trust them to do what is right (by the shareholders)?
[rant]
There are plenty of arguments for the legalization consumption (not selling) of controlled substances.
Not the least of which is the fact that it's MY body. Where does the government get off telling me what I can and cannot put in my body? What, we should ban some substances just because they are bad for our health? Fine, whatever, but that's going to put McD, Wendy's et al out of business.
How about the fact that it makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens? How about the fact that in the US, you can get financial aid if you rape 50 women and dump their body's in dumpsters, but if you get busted for 1 joint they cut you off.
[end rant]
Anttech, you said that perhaps since those in the UK are unable to get illegal fireams, that they turn to illegal substances. This argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Nobody sits around and says: "hmmm.... I've got about 400 euros here.... I could buy a pistol to go blast some fools... or I could just get wasted". Sorry, they're just not substitute products.
People do drugs because they like to get high, whereas they own guns for a multitude of reasons. Those that obtain them illegally usually have nefarious purposes in mind; seldom is it home protection.
Anttech
Sep22-06, 09:08 AM
Anttech, you said that perhaps since those in the UK are unable to get illegal fireams, that they turn to illegal substances. This argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Ohh sorry I was being sarcastic... Ill edit my post
Anttech
Sep22-06, 09:13 AM
People do drugs because they like to get high, People also do drugs because they need to (heroin addition--> you can die if you dont have your fix), and they also do them to escape from reality, especially in poorer areas.
Sorry that your sarcasm was lost on me.
Not that it has any bearing on the discussion at hand, but I feel compelled... I view the war on drugs as one of the last great injustices in our society.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/heroin.html
Actually, withdrawal from heroin is less dangerous than from alcohol.
tribdog
Sep22-06, 10:07 AM
People also do drugs because they need to (heroin addition--> you can die if you dont have your fix), and they also do them to escape from reality, especially in poorer areas.
heroin addition isn't that bad, it's the multiplication and division that threw me for a loop
[rant]
Not the least of which is the fact that it's MY body
Much like gun laws, the drug laws are in place due to a perceived risk to the public. Nobody really cares if you OD on cocaine and die, but they do care when "cocaine-crazed negroes" start to think they're as good as white folk (that was an actual argument to the US senate). On the side of guns, people want guns illegal because there is a perceived risk that guns cause crime.
Anttech
Sep23-06, 03:36 AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2908621023073531157&q=the+drugs+were+legal
here is a nice fictitious program by the bbc, which looks at what would happen if drugs became legal. It has interviews with real experts. Good analysis
0TheSwerve0
Oct2-06, 05:41 PM
Another, in Pennsylvania: http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/School_Violence
This time, the gunman sent the males and adult females out and then opened fire on the remaining dozen girls, shooting 4 execution style.
Another female was killed in the recent Canadian shooting.
14 females killed in Ecole Polytechnique shooting in 1989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre
Is this violence directed specifically at women? The Polytechnique shooting certainly was - http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/12/06/massacre001206
He began shooting. Fourteen young women were killed. Thirteen other people were injured.
Then he killed himself, and left behind a note that said feminists had ruined his life.
The shooting horrified the nation and has come to symbolize violence against women.
Possibly the recent Colorado shooting, too
http://www.examiner.com/a-315481~Student_Details_Colo__School_Shooting.html
Cassidy Grigg, 16, said the man walked in, fired a warning shot at the floor and ordered the students to line up. He told some to leave and others - all girls - to stay.
"You could tell that he wanted the females," Cassidy said on NBC's "Today" Thursday. "He tapped me on the shoulder and he told me to leave the room. I told him, 'I don't want to leave.'"
Are there a lot of gunmen in school shootings that specifically target females?
Are there a lot of gunmen in school shootings that specifically target females?
"You won't have sex with me? Women must die!"
It's probably not too far from the truth. Guys having lots of sex probably won't go all crazy and start killing people.
When the Amish have school shootings, the world is going to end....oh dear.
I wont say anything about an Amish drive by, because that would be wrong......
When will it end :frown:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4371403.stm
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.