Brit MP shot

Talk about serious issues here!
User avatar
Shadow00

Re: Brit MP shot

Postby Shadow00 » 22 Jun 2016, 19:13

OK since you people apparently have problems identifying reality.

Mass shootings in the US, since 1966, have had a total of 869 victims.
That's 0.0002% of the US's population
Now in the UK, since 1984, there have been 284 deaths due to mass bomb or gun deaths, aka 0.0004% of the UK's population.
That's double the number of deaths for its according population. And in 18 years less too.

Now these events are from insiders only, i do not count terrorism, or so-called terrorism attacks.
If i did, the US's rate would be ~4-5 times higher.
Also i only counted mass shootings, because, quite obviously, in events of 1 person killing another, a gun or a bomb isnt necessary. And since most of those are due to gang wars, even if guns were banned, all of these people would probably be stabbed to death or beaten to death instead.

You can keep believing the lie of guns being a problem, but the only reason you hear of so many events of violence in the US is that
A)It has 10 times the amount of population of the UK
and
B)It has a much greater percentage of lower level educated individuals, you know exactly what im referring to.

EDIT: as far as history is concerned.
Just because you hear about it a LOT, doesn't mean that it's the most deadly
You hear "US shooting here", "US shooting there", but most of the times it is not nearly as deadly as other events happening daily.
for example I counted only events with 10 or more dead as mass shootings/bombings.
A 1 or 2 or even 8 people dying event, while it might be horrible, it is not a mass shooting.
Also, the interesting part is, that even though guns exist in the US, there have been more dead from 911 than from all the shooting events since 1960's combined.
And even more.
And even funnier than that, although world war 2 was LITERALLY fought with guns, about half the people that died in it were actually gassed to death, rather than shot to death.


It doesn't matter if you ban guns, people will still die, and MAYBE, just maybe, according to a video i posted some time ago, that's for the better in the long run.
Is saving say 1000 people over the course of 40 years good?
Let's even say 100.000 people.
If we could save 100.000 people from dying by guns in 40 years, although that number is extremely exxagerated, then the US would actually lose more money than it would lose by saving say millions of people, by producing vaccines with the money they get from both legit gun trades, as well as illegal gun trades

User avatar
Sylvia
FWG Mod
Posts: 1177
Joined: 20 Oct 2009, 18:36
Location: Wonderland

Re: Brit MP shot

Postby Sylvia » 22 Jun 2016, 19:31

Shadow00 wrote:OK since you people apparently have problems identifying reality.

Mass shootings in the US, since 1966, have had a total of 869 victims.
That's 0.0002% of the US's population
Now in the UK, since 1984, there have been 284 deaths due to mass bomb or gun deaths, aka 0.0004% of the UK's population.
That's double the number of deaths for its according population. And in 18 years less too.

Now these events are from insiders only, i do not count terrorism, or so-called terrorism attacks.
If i did, the US's rate would be ~4-5 times higher.
Also i only counted mass shootings, because, quite obviously, in events of 1 person killing another, a gun or a bomb isnt necessary. And since most of those are due to gang wars, even if guns were banned, all of these people would probably be stabbed to death or beaten to death instead.

You can keep believing the lie of guns being a problem, but the only reason you hear of so many events of violence in the US is that
A)It has 10 times the amount of population of the UK
and
B)It has a much greater percentage of lower level educated individuals, you know exactly what im referring to.

EDIT: as far as history is concerned.
Just because you hear about it a LOT, doesn't mean that it's the most deadly
You hear "US shooting here", "US shooting there", but most of the times it is not nearly as deadly as other events happening daily.
for example I counted only events with 10 or more dead as mass shootings/bombings.
A 1 or 2 or even 8 people dying event, while it might be horrible, it is not a mass shooting.
Also, the interesting part is, that even though guns exist in the US, there have been more dead from 911 than from all the shooting events since 1960's combined.
And even more.
And even funnier than that, although world war 2 was LITERALLY fought with guns, about half the people that died in it were actually gassed to death, rather than shot to death.


It doesn't matter if you ban guns, people will still die, and MAYBE, just maybe, according to a video i posted some time ago, that's for the better in the long run.
Is saving say 1000 people over the course of 40 years good?
Let's even say 100.000 people.
If we could save 100.000 people from dying by guns in 40 years, although that number is extremely exxagerated, then the US would actually lose more money than it would lose by saving say millions of people, by producing vaccines with the money they get from both legit gun trades, as well as illegal gun trades


So you counted bomb deaths in the UK count, but then said that you didn't count terrorism in the US count as it would be 4-5 times higher?

Here are some other facts regarding that point:

The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1. (Source - UNODC)

This chart also illustrates the massive difference: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/20 ... fPo-01.jpg
Problems with Medals, Quizzes or other activities - PM me here!

Image FWG Award for Heart of Gold

User avatar
Shadow00

Re: Brit MP shot

Postby Shadow00 » 22 Jun 2016, 20:25

Sylvia wrote:
Shadow00 wrote:OK since you people apparently have problems identifying reality.

Mass shootings in the US, since 1966, have had a total of 869 victims.
That's 0.0002% of the US's population
Now in the UK, since 1984, there have been 284 deaths due to mass bomb or gun deaths, aka 0.0004% of the UK's population.
That's double the number of deaths for its according population. And in 18 years less too.

Now these events are from insiders only, i do not count terrorism, or so-called terrorism attacks.
If i did, the US's rate would be ~4-5 times higher.
Also i only counted mass shootings, because, quite obviously, in events of 1 person killing another, a gun or a bomb isnt necessary. And since most of those are due to gang wars, even if guns were banned, all of these people would probably be stabbed to death or beaten to death instead.

You can keep believing the lie of guns being a problem, but the only reason you hear of so many events of violence in the US is that
A)It has 10 times the amount of population of the UK
and
B)It has a much greater percentage of lower level educated individuals, you know exactly what im referring to.

EDIT: as far as history is concerned.
Just because you hear about it a LOT, doesn't mean that it's the most deadly
You hear "US shooting here", "US shooting there", but most of the times it is not nearly as deadly as other events happening daily.
for example I counted only events with 10 or more dead as mass shootings/bombings.
A 1 or 2 or even 8 people dying event, while it might be horrible, it is not a mass shooting.
Also, the interesting part is, that even though guns exist in the US, there have been more dead from 911 than from all the shooting events since 1960's combined.
And even more.
And even funnier than that, although world war 2 was LITERALLY fought with guns, about half the people that died in it were actually gassed to death, rather than shot to death.


It doesn't matter if you ban guns, people will still die, and MAYBE, just maybe, according to a video i posted some time ago, that's for the better in the long run.
Is saving say 1000 people over the course of 40 years good?
Let's even say 100.000 people.
If we could save 100.000 people from dying by guns in 40 years, although that number is extremely exxagerated, then the US would actually lose more money than it would lose by saving say millions of people, by producing vaccines with the money they get from both legit gun trades, as well as illegal gun trades


So you counted bomb deaths in the UK count, but then said that you didn't count terrorism in the US count as it would be 4-5 times higher?

Here are some other facts regarding that point:

The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1. (Source - UNODC)

This chart also illustrates the massive difference: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/20 ... fPo-01.jpg

I said i didn't count EXTERNAL bombings etc, thus leaving out 911.
Also, homicides are also concerned with gang wars, and actually the greatest proportion of them derive from gang wars, which as i said, people involved in gangs are of lower intelligence mostly and don't require a gun to kill one another.

It might be harsh or even racist, but people being killed in such affairs should have no say in the second amendment being altered.

User avatar
The Divine Potato
The All Powerful FWGER
Posts: 2286
Joined: 02 Apr 2013, 19:07
Location: Everywhere and nowhere doing everything and nothing

Re: Brit MP shot

Postby The Divine Potato » 22 Jun 2016, 23:14

Shadow00 wrote:

And even funnier than that, although world war 2 was LITERALLY fought with guns, about half the people that died in it were actually gassed to death, rather than shot to death.



I just want to pick out this deluded, misguided, poorly-thought-out, childish, and very like you remark. World war two was not fought using gas against soldiers, Adolph Hitler believed the use of it to be strategically detrimental due to the wind's effect on it's spread. What you are doing, is confusing it with what was not a war, but a slaughter, that event was called The Holocaust, Chris. The Jewish people being gassed in concentration camps as well as many others were not ever POWs, they were civilians being targeted for no good reason, not bothered about the rest of the argument, but you cannot bend history, Chris, World War Two was the age when guns and bombs claimed lives, a more pertinent example is to use how healthcare should be more focused on because of World War ONE where most of the deaths came about because of diseases brought on by trench warfare's horrendous conditions. In short, become a great deal more respectful towards the dead in your arguments, not even going to mention your jab which literally turned this topic from noting Jo Cox's death into a gun debate under the noses of every other user.
Image -Best Storyteller award

"You have to pass on the torch sometime, just make sure it's a light and not a disease"

User avatar
Flobalob
FWG Mod
Posts: 1055
Joined: 14 Oct 2012, 19:12
Location: In a toaster. Long story.
Contact:

Re: Brit MP shot

Postby Flobalob » 23 Jun 2016, 17:18

Shadow00 wrote:Mass shootings in the US, since 1966, have had a total of 869 victims.
That's 0.0002% of the US's population
Now in the UK, since 1984, there have been 284 deaths due to mass bomb or gun deaths, aka 0.0004% of the UK's population.
That's double the number of deaths for its according population. And in 18 years less too.

No no no, if you're counting only mass shootings in the US you can only count mass shootings in the UK. Bombs account for the majority of that 284, due to the IRA and such, and since bombs are already banned they're not really relevant to the debate. So, use the figure of 46 for the 12 killed in the 2010 Cumbria shootings, the 18 killed at Dunblane in 1996 and the 16 killed at Hungerford in 1987.

Current US Population = 318.9 million. 869/318.9 million = 0.00000272499
Current UK Population = 64.1 million. 46/64.1 million ....= 0.000000717628705

Shadow00 wrote:You can keep believing the lie of guns being a problem, but the only reason you hear of so many events of violence in the US is that
A)It has 10 times the amount of population of the UK
and
B)It has a much greater percentage of lower level educated individuals, you know exactly what im referring to.

A) That means nothing when you compare it per capita (refer to above, and to Syl, and to virtually every comparison made online because we're not stupid and we know that)

B) I'm going to first humour your point. If that's true, does it not stand to reason that those "lower level educated individuals" should not have access to deadly weapons? Now, I'm pretty sure that if you go to South London/East London you'll discover that in fact what you're referring to is just as prominent here and in most countries. As someone who grew up near to South London in a town with one of the worst crime rates in the UK, I can tell you from first-hand experience that it's honestly mind-boggling. Yet, the homicide rate there is nothing compared to in it's equivalents in the US.

Shadow00 wrote:EDIT: as far as history is concerned.
Just because you hear about it a LOT, doesn't mean that it's the most deadly
You hear "US shooting here", "US shooting there", but most of the times it is not nearly as deadly as other events happening daily.
for example I counted only events with 10 or more dead as mass shootings/bombings.
A 1 or 2 or even 8 people dying event, while it might be horrible, it is not a mass shooting.

1, 2 or 8 people dying due to guns is still a lot of preventable deaths that did not need to happen. Bombs are illegal already so they're kind of not relevant to the debate, but can you imagine if making and having bombs was legal? The kind of catastrophes we'd see every day?

Just because it's not the worst thing happening out there, doesn't mean we should ignore it and wait for it to become the worst thing happening out there. It's still just as terrible.

Shadow00 wrote:Now these events are from insiders only, i do not count terrorism, or so-called terrorism attacks.
If i did, the US's rate would be ~4-5 times higher.

Shadow00 wrote:Also, the interesting part is, that even though guns exist in the US, there have been more dead from 911 than from all the shooting events since 1960's combined.

That's not remotely true. There have been more dead by firearms within the US than all US combat deaths since 1966. There were about 1.4 million deaths due to gunfire in the US between 1968 and 2011, compared to 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the War of Independence to Iraq.

According to the US Department of Justice and the Council on Foreign Affairs, an average of 11,385 were killed annually between 2001-11. In contrast, on average 517 people a year were killed between 2001-11 due to terrorism. If you cancel out 2001 (for 9/11), the annual average drops to just 31.

Here's a graph to illustrate:
Image


Shadow00 wrote:And even funnier than that, although world war 2 was LITERALLY fought with guns, about half the people that died in it were actually gassed to death, rather than shot to death.

I crossed out the first part of the sentence, because there's nothing remotely funny about it. Nor true, in fact. If you're referring to the actual conflict of WW2, gas was not used by any side due to both M.A.D. and the fact that it was impractical. There's evidence that every country had massive stores of chemical weapons, and therefore if one had used them so would the others, much like our WMD situation today.

If you're referring to the Holocaust and those killed in concentration camps with gas, then really that is entirely irrelevant, because it was not a natural occurrence that gas executions here happened to outweigh gun executions. It was very deliberate on the part of Nazi Germany to exterminate the Jewish people through gas and to deliberately not use guns, as gas extermination was found to be much more efficient, cost-effective and practical to clean up, aswell as being less of a strain on staffing and on the minds of the soldiers who would have had to stand shooting people as part of a firing squad from dawn till dusk. (This point too is also irrelevant, since chemical warfare is also illegal and therefore not relevant to the debate we are having).

Shadow00 wrote:I said i didn't count EXTERNAL bombings etc, thus leaving out 911.
Also, homicides are also concerned with gang wars, and actually the greatest proportion of them derive from gang wars, which as i said, people involved in gangs are of lower intelligence mostly and don't require a gun to kill one another.

It might be harsh or even racist, but people being killed in such affairs should have no say in the second amendment being altered.

Let's look at a quick little link shall we? Scroll down a bit and you'll see that the figure of 869 has this neat little parameter attached to it:-

"This data — compiled from Mother Jones; Grant Duwe, author of “Mass Murder in the United States: A History,” and Washington Post research — does not include gang killings, shootings that began as other crimes such as robberies, and killings that involved only the shooter’s family."

Therefore, you're talking bollocks.
September Quiz - 2ndImage
October Contest - 2ndImage
Official most likely to become the new Kim Kardashian - Image#Betterthanyou

User avatar
Shadow00

Re: Brit MP shot

Postby Shadow00 » 24 Jun 2016, 03:41

Flobalob wrote:
Shadow00 wrote:Mass shootings in the US, since 1966, have had a total of 869 victims.
That's 0.0002% of the US's population
Now in the UK, since 1984, there have been 284 deaths due to mass bomb or gun deaths, aka 0.0004% of the UK's population.
That's double the number of deaths for its according population. And in 18 years less too.

No no no, if you're counting only mass shootings in the US you can only count mass shootings in the UK. Bombs account for the majority of that 284, due to the IRA and such, and since bombs are already banned they're not really relevant to the debate. So, use the figure of 46 for the 12 killed in the 2010 Cumbria shootings, the 18 killed at Dunblane in 1996 and the 16 killed at Hungerford in 1987.

Current US Population = 318.9 million. 869/318.9 million = 0.00000272499
Current UK Population = 64.1 million. 46/64.1 million ....= 0.000000717628705

Shadow00 wrote:You can keep believing the lie of guns being a problem, but the only reason you hear of so many events of violence in the US is that
A)It has 10 times the amount of population of the UK
and
B)It has a much greater percentage of lower level educated individuals, you know exactly what im referring to.

A) That means nothing when you compare it per capita (refer to above, and to Syl, and to virtually every comparison made online because we're not stupid and we know that)

B) I'm going to first humour your point. If that's true, does it not stand to reason that those "lower level educated individuals" should not have access to deadly weapons? Now, I'm pretty sure that if you go to South London/East London you'll discover that in fact what you're referring to is just as prominent here and in most countries. As someone who grew up near to South London in a town with one of the worst crime rates in the UK, I can tell you from first-hand experience that it's honestly mind-boggling. Yet, the homicide rate there is nothing compared to in it's equivalents in the US.

Shadow00 wrote:EDIT: as far as history is concerned.
Just because you hear about it a LOT, doesn't mean that it's the most deadly
You hear "US shooting here", "US shooting there", but most of the times it is not nearly as deadly as other events happening daily.
for example I counted only events with 10 or more dead as mass shootings/bombings.
A 1 or 2 or even 8 people dying event, while it might be horrible, it is not a mass shooting.

1, 2 or 8 people dying due to guns is still a lot of preventable deaths that did not need to happen. Bombs are illegal already so they're kind of not relevant to the debate, but can you imagine if making and having bombs was legal? The kind of catastrophes we'd see every day?

Just because it's not the worst thing happening out there, doesn't mean we should ignore it and wait for it to become the worst thing happening out there. It's still just as terrible.

Shadow00 wrote:Now these events are from insiders only, i do not count terrorism, or so-called terrorism attacks.
If i did, the US's rate would be ~4-5 times higher.

Shadow00 wrote:Also, the interesting part is, that even though guns exist in the US, there have been more dead from 911 than from all the shooting events since 1960's combined.

That's not remotely true. There have been more dead by firearms within the US than all US combat deaths since 1966. There were about 1.4 million deaths due to gunfire in the US between 1968 and 2011, compared to 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the War of Independence to Iraq.

According to the US Department of Justice and the Council on Foreign Affairs, an average of 11,385 were killed annually between 2001-11. In contrast, on average 517 people a year were killed between 2001-11 due to terrorism. If you cancel out 2001 (for 9/11), the annual average drops to just 31.

Here's a graph to illustrate:
Image


Shadow00 wrote:And even funnier than that, although world war 2 was LITERALLY fought with guns, about half the people that died in it were actually gassed to death, rather than shot to death.

I crossed out the first part of the sentence, because there's nothing remotely funny about it. Nor true, in fact. If you're referring to the actual conflict of WW2, gas was not used by any side due to both M.A.D. and the fact that it was impractical. There's evidence that every country had massive stores of chemical weapons, and therefore if one had used them so would the others, much like our WMD situation today.

If you're referring to the Holocaust and those killed in concentration camps with gas, then really that is entirely irrelevant, because it was not a natural occurrence that gas executions here happened to outweigh gun executions. It was very deliberate on the part of Nazi Germany to exterminate the Jewish people through gas and to deliberately not use guns, as gas extermination was found to be much more efficient, cost-effective and practical to clean up, aswell as being less of a strain on staffing and on the minds of the soldiers who would have had to stand shooting people as part of a firing squad from dawn till dusk. (This point too is also irrelevant, since chemical warfare is also illegal and therefore not relevant to the debate we are having).

Shadow00 wrote:I said i didn't count EXTERNAL bombings etc, thus leaving out 911.
Also, homicides are also concerned with gang wars, and actually the greatest proportion of them derive from gang wars, which as i said, people involved in gangs are of lower intelligence mostly and don't require a gun to kill one another.

It might be harsh or even racist, but people being killed in such affairs should have no say in the second amendment being altered.

Let's look at a quick little link shall we? Scroll down a bit and you'll see that the figure of 869 has this neat little parameter attached to it:-

"This data — compiled from Mother Jones; Grant Duwe, author of “Mass Murder in the United States: A History,” and Washington Post research — does not include gang killings, shootings that began as other crimes such as robberies, and killings that involved only the shooter’s family."

Therefore, you're talking bollocks.


Ok, so you agree that with ALL the hate its getting, the US having firearms has say 4 times the mass shooting death toll of the UK, and it affects about , well, 3 people for every million people in the US
Thats ridiculously low to even care about. Literally more infants die at birth every day (6 out of every 1000 births, CDC stats).
You have deaths from say Hospital related infections.
They actually account for a great amount themselves (CDC report again). Why not allocate money there instead of the bloated gun violence?

Well if you ARE to count gang wars etc, then yes the figure is ~1.4 million deaths. You dont need to ban guns to fix that number, you can build walls and it will still drop. It will be far more effective than banning guns too.

Obviously was referring to holocaust.

Even then though, even with every bottom feeder killing each otger for drugs (not necessarily bad), even with 30-40 people dying from a mass shooting every year, you can actually save MORE people from actually allocating your money to something reasonable, say healthcare.

But then again, there are no juicy, bloody, gripping stories about people dying to infections, are there.
Thus the media cant care about it, and thus you wont care about it.
You have thousands of people dying every day in the US alone, and you dare use the "every life matters" quote, when you back up the idea of doing nothing for about 95+% of them, for the sake of TRYING to lower the other 5-% death chances, by passing gun laws that are NOT guaranteed to work.

User avatar
Flobalob
FWG Mod
Posts: 1055
Joined: 14 Oct 2012, 19:12
Location: In a toaster. Long story.
Contact:

Re: Brit MP shot

Postby Flobalob » 24 Jun 2016, 13:30

Shadow00 wrote:Ok, so you agree that with ALL the hate its getting, the US having firearms has say 4 times the mass shooting death toll of the UK, and it affects about , well, 3 people for every million people in the US
Thats ridiculously low to even care about. Literally more infants die at birth every day (6 out of every 1000 births, CDC stats).
You have deaths from say Hospital related infections.
They actually account for a great amount themselves (CDC report again). Why not allocate money there instead of the bloated gun violence?

Well if you ARE to count gang wars etc, then yes the figure is ~1.4 million deaths. You dont need to ban guns to fix that number, you can build walls and it will still drop. It will be far more effective than banning guns too.

Obviously was referring to holocaust.

Even then though, even with every bottom feeder killing each otger for drugs (not necessarily bad), even with 30-40 people dying from a mass shooting every year, you can actually save MORE people from actually allocating your money to something reasonable, say healthcare.

But then again, there are no juicy, bloody, gripping stories about people dying to infections, are there.
Thus the media cant care about it, and thus you wont care about it.
You have thousands of people dying every day in the US alone, and you dare use the "every life matters" quote, when you back up the idea of doing nothing for about 95+% of them, for the sake of TRYING to lower the other 5-% death chances, by passing gun laws that are NOT guaranteed to work.

I think you're missing the fact that those 6 in 1000 infants dying at birth aren't preventable. There's simply very little more that can be done to lower the infant mortality rate in the US below what it is. If, say, there was some horrific law that if an infant is in trouble at birth we shouldn't save their life because we should let nature take it's course, then perhaps that statistic would be relevant. And likewise, I would be supporting a repeal of that law.

What I'm trying to say, is that the statistics for infant mortality and hospital related infections aren't relevant to the debate over gun laws because it is not a law that is causing those deaths to happen. In the US there is a law that is causing thousands of deaths a year. By simply repealing this law, all those lives could be saved. Likewise, if there was a law causing all those infant and infection deaths I would want that repealed too, but that's a whole different issue.

Just because it's not the most important thing out there doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed, when all it would take is a simple bill.
September Quiz - 2ndImage
October Contest - 2ndImage
Official most likely to become the new Kim Kardashian - Image#Betterthanyou

User avatar
Shadow00

Re: Brit MP shot

Postby Shadow00 » 25 Jun 2016, 12:32

Yes but the point is, you can't simply make laws and enforce them, you need to pay to get them enforced.
And money in a country in debt, such as the US, is a resource which you'd wanna use as efficiently as you can.
You want to save lives? Save them in the most cost effective way possible.

User avatar
The Divine Potato
The All Powerful FWGER
Posts: 2286
Joined: 02 Apr 2013, 19:07
Location: Everywhere and nowhere doing everything and nothing

Re: Brit MP shot

Postby The Divine Potato » 25 Jun 2016, 18:47

Shadow00 wrote:Yes but the point is, you can't simply make laws and enforce them, you need to pay to get them enforced.
And money in a country in debt, such as the US, is a resource which you'd wanna use as efficiently as you can.
You want to save lives? Save them in the most cost effective way possible.


In a system where there's more debt than wealth and there will always be, it doesn't really matter to the US if they mismanage money or not, if they strike bad foreign relations with those who may want their money back then money is a problem.
Image -Best Storyteller award

"You have to pass on the torch sometime, just make sure it's a light and not a disease"


Return to “Serious Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest