Gun math.. www . neontommy . com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns Not OC, just wanted to share... Exactly. One must quit asking why there are so many guns and start asking why there are so many murderers. do Baseball bats kill People too
x
Click to expand

Gun math.

(Enlarge)
Gun math.. www . neontommy . com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns Not OC, just wanted to share... Exactly. One must quit asking why there are so many guns and start asking why there are so many murderers.

www . neontommy . com/news/2012/07/doing-math-guns

Not OC, just wanted to share.

  • Recommend tagsx
+87
Views: 6645
Favorited: 8
Submitted: 12/27/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to mrbobert Subscribe to fucking-guns submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #5 - techketzer (12/27/2012) [-]
Exactly.
One must quit asking why there are so many guns and start asking why there are so many murderers.
User avatar #6 - Fgner (12/27/2012) [-]
Apparently nobody thinks like me. Who cares if guns are around, that's not the problem here. The problem is PEOPLE ARE MURDERING OTHER PEOPLE. If someone wants someone dead, it will happen.The problem isn't that people can kill other people with guns instead of knives or bombs like all the anti-gun people want us to believe. It's that we have so many murderers and people with the intent to kill other people, who will do so one way or another. The way I see it, they'll eventually make a gun ban or something, and the murder rates will either stay the same, or go up (from those same murderers knowing people can no longer defend themselves). Then half the country will say "I TOLD YOU SO!", make them give their guns back, and they'll move on to the next stupid ******* thing to blame like "well it's the fact we use fossil fuels! These murders are all just worried ecologists!


Also: Take out the gang crime from thes statistics and the drug related ones and such, and these numbers will decrease massively. The majority of these are not innocent civilian deaths.
#14 to #6 - rkdisme (12/27/2012) [-]
How many of the last few mass shootings in the US were done with illegal guns? None. All of the past shootings were done with legally acquired guns and bullets because the regulations are so lax. If you don't want to bad guns, okay, how about you change the regulations so that the background checks are mandatory and you can't straight out buy guns from gun shows. Also raise the funding of mental institutions to prevent violent breakouts.

Problem with the US is that NRA makes it so that there will be no changes to gun regulations. Republicans want to cut spending and cut funding of mental institutions. All this contributes to more murders.

As an example take the latest shooting we had in America. 26 people were gunned down by one person. Were his guns legal? Yes, his mother owned 12 guns in the house. Was she safe by having so many guns in the house? Idk, go find her corpse and ask her. If the guy wanted to kill those children with a knife, would it be harder to do so? Yes. Would the same amount of people be dead? Probably not.

Around the time of that shooting, in China, a man attacked kindergarteners with a hammer. Most of the kids got hurt, but there were no casulties. "Gun ownership in the People's Republic of China is heavily regulated by law. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess guns" as stated by wikipedia.

26 dead vs 0 dead. I'd pick 0 any day. Making guns illegal or heavier regulation will not make the crimes go away, but it will make killing people harder and in doing so will hopefully lower the murder rates we have now.
User avatar #41 to #14 - Fgner (12/28/2012) [-]
> Who cares if they got them legally? If a criminal wants a gun, and it's legal - why not? If a criminal wants a gun and it's not, buy one on the black market, make a homemade bomb (extremely easy), or just go stab the **** out of people.
> Actually, the EU has worse/more public shootings than us. Less reported though. Most of our gun related crime is gang related. Public shootings are rare but are reported everywhere for weeks/months, so it seems like we're worse.
> Mental institutions get enough money. But the applicant has to have a family member ienroll them or enroll themselves, we can't just go grabbing people "oh you might be crazy." Thus, the loons don't get in when they should. It's not a matter of funding, it's a matter of identification and retrieval.
> Don't blame Republicans. I hate it when people have to point fingers at the people they don't like and generalize. Make a point instead of bashing with ******** .
> Actually, I don't think it would have been all that much harder to have made a simple bomb you could google and blown up half the school instead. And there are plenty of weapons other than real rifles, chainsaws for instance.
> Can I hear what injuries they had? I'll be brutal here, I'd rather have dead children, then children who got beaten in the head and are vegetables now.
> I believe heavier regulation for sure. Just not making guns illegal complety. Hefty background checks, limiting factors like number, size, type , et cetera. I support that completely.

But again, not many of these are actually innocent civilian deaths. And I'm not really convinced that taking away people's right to have a gun (and therefore some of the fear of committing crimes) is such a great idea. Heavy regulation, yes, weapons should be for self defense, and sometimes hunting (not my boat so I can't say much here).
User avatar #45 to #41 - chiefrunnyjeans (12/31/2012) [-]
I agree somewhat. If by heavy regulation you mean background checks and not selling to the mentally ill/criminals then I agree. But everything else will fail as you can see in the EU where illegal weapons are used every day to kill innocent people and defending yourself can land you in jail for life.
User avatar #46 to #45 - Fgner (01/01/2013) [-]
I would say reasonably: Background checks, a cooldown period, a psychological examination, and some other limitations/precautions.

Don't take weapons away, just make sure you only sell them to those who are fit to own them.
#23 to #14 - Rascal (12/28/2012) [-]
Finally some sense. Guns are not the answer.
User avatar #44 to #14 - chiefrunnyjeans (12/31/2012) [-]
Actually there are other ways people can kill eachother. Making guns illegal won't change that. Killing will just become more brutal with swords, pipe bombs, and still guns. The reason killers choose schools, movie theatres etc. is because they are low risk. They know no one will have a gun so they can just walk in and shoot it up, whereas a bank robbery can lead to getting shot (which recently happened). The NRA is 100% correct that an armed gaurd in every school, just like a bank, will protect more lives. Making guns illegal is taking them away from those who follow the law, not those who break it.
#21 to #14 - comehonorfacetwice (12/28/2012) [-]
But the issue isn't that I, as a 19 year old American, could get my hands on a legal gun. The issue is that I, as a 19 year old American, could get my hands on a fully automatic gun of any sort without much trouble at all (illegally of course). If I was so inclined (and had the money), I could by the end of January, have, in my possession, an RPG, a mounted gun, armor piercing rounds, etc. If we restrict legal guns, people inclined to murder will get their guns illegally. It is not a difficult feat at all. The issue we should look at is, as you said, increased funding (hopefully privatization) of mental institutions, and stopping the sale of illegal weapons. The fact that I could easily get an illegal assault rifle (having lived in one of the top 100 richest counties, attending a top 500 ranked high school, being an Eagle Scout, having grown up in an altogether 'clean' environment) is what is scary. I have little exposure to the violence of an inner city neighborhood, little exposure to gang violence, the drug trade, arms trade, etc. Yet, I still know people who could get me nearly any weapon I wanted within a month. Clearly, some sort of background check is needed. But more than that, we need to stem the flow of illegal weapons into (and out of, AG Eric Holder) this country.
User avatar #22 to #21 - restrict (12/28/2012) [-]
TL;DR

dont call me here
#24 to #22 - comehonorfacetwice (12/28/2012) [-]
Sorry about that. I'll spell it incorrectly next time.
User avatar #42 to #21 - Fgner (12/28/2012) [-]
I thought I put this in the OP:

I do believe in regulation of weapons. Just not the ban of them. People should be able to have side arms for self defense, maybe a couple rifles for hunting (not people hunting). But I agree, it's silly to have assault rifles and RPGs and stuff as a civilian. They can't be used for anything but bling and trouble, and the bling ain't worth it of course.
#8 - pineapplepeople (12/27/2012) [-]
I don't give a **** if you own a pistol. **** , I don't really care if you own an AK-47 (though I don't like it). I have a problem with the idea that someone can walk into a store and say "I want an AK-47 and 500 rounds of ammo please!" and actually get it. I don't know much about gun policy here in America, because I honestly hate guns, but any place that doesn't carefully screen those they give guns to is a dangerous place.
User avatar #9 to #8 - xinsai (12/27/2012) [-]
you are required to have liscenses n **** for buying semi or full automatic weaponry. Yes, most people can get them but it takes time. Nobody can just walk in and buy a weapon willy nilly except for hunting rifles or small fire arms.
User avatar #10 to #8 - violenthandjob (12/27/2012) [-]
All firearms purchases from a licensed dealers in the U.S. require a NICS background check.
#15 to #10 - rkdisme (12/27/2012) [-]
You can buy a gun from a gun show without a background check
User avatar #16 to #15 - violenthandjob (12/27/2012) [-]
Not from a licensed dealer you can't.
#17 to #16 - rkdisme (12/27/2012) [-]
RIght, but if you have an old gun you want to sell and you're not a dealer, you can do it without any checks whatsoever. Non-dealer to non-dealer transaction is perfectly legal and does not require a background check.
User avatar #18 to #17 - violenthandjob (12/27/2012) [-]
Correct, if multiple transactions from one person take place though the ATF may consider it "dealing in firearms". I know I would definitely take the time to have the transfer recorded if I was to sell to another person.
#19 to #18 - rkdisme (12/27/2012) [-]
Not everyone is as responsible as you. That is why I think that there should be more regulations and at the very least a psychological evaluation and a background check to see if the people who live with the person are stable.
User avatar #20 to #19 - violenthandjob (12/28/2012) [-]
I see your point and feel somewhat similar to an extent. I myself am on the fence regarding background checks and offical transfers for private trade.
#2 - Rascal (12/27/2012) [-]
Oh and if you start with the "America has more people." Then I am going to flip a **** and make those numbers go up quickly if you understand where I am going with that!!!
#3 to #2 - Kennyalways (12/27/2012) [-]
But that makes a big, big difference, the US has a very large population compared to other countries, and very large per capita compared to some others too.  While its not an amazing arguement it is a fair one and i honestly have not researched much but you cant say thats not a good reason
But that makes a big, big difference, the US has a very large population compared to other countries, and very large per capita compared to some others too. While its not an amazing arguement it is a fair one and i honestly have not researched much but you cant say thats not a good reason
#12 to #3 - Rascal (12/27/2012) [-]
DO ANY OF YOU EVEN MEAN WHAT "PER CAPITA" MEANS????


Anybody who says "America has more people" on a statistic about "per capita" are complete morons and got no clue whatsoever what the **** that term means and if you do not them shut the **** up!
#26 to #12 - Kennyalways (12/28/2012) [-]
Ok asshole, America has some of the largest cities in the world.  Knowing this, and coupled with the fact that our cities can have millions of people, plus with looser restrictions, its no wonder why we have more deaths by gun because there is more of us per 			*******		 city than some have in the entire country, New York City alone has 8 million people, so population makes a huge 			*******		 difference
Ok asshole, America has some of the largest cities in the world. Knowing this, and coupled with the fact that our cities can have millions of people, plus with looser restrictions, its no wonder why we have more deaths by gun because there is more of us per ******* city than some have in the entire country, New York City alone has 8 million people, so population makes a huge ******* difference
#27 to #26 - Rascal (12/28/2012) [-]
Explain to me please. What does per capita means. Please I need to know that you are aware of this before I proceed.
User avatar #28 to #27 - Kennyalways (12/28/2012) [-]
Well i will be honest my memory of the term is rusty, if im remembering its the Population per city, but regardless ive explained my point thoroughly, but i will ask does it mean that? and there was no reason for you to flip out like a jackass over the term
#30 to #28 - Rascal (12/28/2012) [-]
Also you are right, I didnt have to flip out, just that the argument "it is not valid cause America has more people." It is seen EVERYWHERE and it gets tirering to look at.
#29 to #28 - Rascal (12/28/2012) [-]
There we have the problem. Per capita is namely the entire whole reason why the argument "America has more people" cannot work.

Per capita is the average per person in a country.
In this statestic above they for instance murders per 100.000 people. If the US has a bit over 4 murders per 100.000 people and South Korea has 2 per 100.000 people then that means that you are twice as likely to be murdered in the US than South Korea because the number per capita aka per person is higher.
User avatar #31 to #29 - Kennyalways (12/28/2012) [-]
Well thank you anon for the knowledge, but while it is seen everywhere, theres a reason. It is a very valid arguement as, in the example you used with South Korea, There are many more people in America than south korea, so it makes many, many more murders because there is more people who are willing to murder
#32 to #31 - Rascal (12/28/2012) [-]
Wait no no thats not how it is. That is like saying just because I have 10 apple trees it means that each of my trees are likely to have more apples than my neighbor who owns 5 apple trees. Just because I have more trees does not mean it will effect each tree.
User avatar #33 to #32 - Kennyalways (12/28/2012) [-]
Im not saying that. Im saying your going to have more. You have 10 tress so naturally youll have more apples thatn your neighbor, the same applies to countries.
#34 to #33 - Rascal (12/28/2012) [-]
No no no. I am talking about apples PER tree.

I have 10 apple trees, I get 30 apples all in all my apples are 3 per tree aka 3 per capita.

My neighbor has 5 apple trees, he happensget 20 apples, 20 devided by 5 is 4 so his apples per tree is 4.

He has less apple trees but his apples per each individual tree is higher.

The fact that the US has twice the murderrate in South Korea has nothing to do with population since it is by per 100.000 people.
#35 to #34 - Rascal (12/28/2012) [-]
murderrate THAN* South Korea

Sorry for typos
User avatar #36 to #35 - Kennyalways (12/28/2012) [-]
Per capita by your definition your correct, but overall the population being larger is a huge part
#37 to #36 - Rascal (12/28/2012) [-]
It plays a huge role in the overall number of murders in the country, correct. But the statistic up there are all about per capita of 100.000 people. So therefore the overall number of the population does not play a role.
#38 to #37 - Rascal (12/28/2012) [-]
For instance, up there you got Germany and Denmark to have the same amount of murders per 100.000 people and Denmark has 5 million people while Germany has 16 times as many people, namely about 80 million people. That means that Germany is just as safe to live in as Denmark regarding murders because the numbers per capita of 100.000 people are the same.
User avatar #39 to #38 - Kennyalways (12/28/2012) [-]
i see your point, but that might be we americans are assholes so idk...but i dont really feel like debating anymore so i will end it as you are correct anon
#40 to #39 - Rascal (12/28/2012) [-]
I respect your words, sorry for being an arse in the beginning. Farewell and thank you for listening.
#13 to #12 - Rascal (12/27/2012) [-]
*KNOW
User avatar #11 to #2 - violenthandjob (12/27/2012) [-]
Just because your tired of hearing something that conflicts with your views doesn't mean it isn't factual. You can not compare statistics for any countries with different populations without adjustment.
#1 - Rascal (12/27/2012) [-]
Are you trolling?

The first statestic, the only nations who beat America were 2-bit nations with a reputation for having no governemtn that can control the damn violence they deal with constantly.

Secondly, the other statestic... are you completely ignoring the fact that the US has TWICE the murderrate of the other countries? If you exclude the guns THEN it becomes equal but otherwise the gun murders are just doubling the numbers...

Bro... do you even math?

#48 - Rascal (02/07/2013) [-]
Show me the stats for China and India, since most people's arguement seems to be America's population.



Then we'll talk.
User avatar #43 - chiefrunnyjeans (12/31/2012) [-]
vermont has the least gun laws and is also the safest state in the nation. Also most people with guns that i've met tend to be much nicer than people who don't. Not only that but you can't argue with hard statistics. I you look at the overall crime rates before and after a gun law is passed it always goes up. Ex. in the 80's detroit tried to pass a law that would stop people from illegally carrying a gun in public. People who wanted to obey the law did so and within two weeks the murder rate rose 22%.
User avatar #47 to #43 - diegrammernazis (02/01/2013) [-]
the criminals start scrambling thats why
#25 - Rascal (12/28/2012) [-]
guns discussion aside, scandinavian countries have 'a lot' of guns, yet not much gun-related homicides...
just something i noticed
0
#7 - graphenz has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #4 - thisisspartah (12/27/2012) [-]
icelands got its **** together
 Friends (0)