Mr. Ambien Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 http://www.fox19.com/category/240225/video-landing-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8153082 Good ol' UK gun violence crap debunked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I am pretty sure all weapons have the potential to assault the last time I checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Some are labeled "assault" weapons for a reason .. the very word "weapon" has connotations of doing another harm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 http://www.fox19.com...&clipId=8153082 Good ol' UK gun violence crap debunked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 The "assault" in assault rifle was an approximate English translation of the German word "Sturm" as in storm, as in to storm a position, it has nothing to do with legal definitions. Well, at least not until the era of progressive creative redefinition anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 A unreality check. Here is an actual reality check: The 2011 Global Study on Homicide - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) http://www.unodc.org...s/homicide.html In 2010 in the US there were 9,960 firearm homicides with those comprising 67.5% of all homicides and a homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population of 3.2. In 2009 in the United Kingdom (England and Wales) there were 41 firearm homicides with those comprising 6.6% of all homicides and a homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population of 0.1. Reality bites, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Congrats to them on lowering their gun death rates while becoming the worst crime country in Europe. Yay gun bans! Also, if you rank the US per capita, which is what any more objective person would do, the US ranks in the high 20s. Reality does bite, especially for anti gun propagandists, when people who they're arguing with actually know what they're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 If you are referring to comparative violent crime stats, that comparison has already been debunked and subjected to a reality check. Reality bites. eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 http://www.telegraph...itas-study.html http://www.dailymail...Africa-U-S.html Yep, reality does bite, for you that is, as reality suggests that less guns for the UK may bring less gun crimes (and there are reasons why the UK was allowed to pass such gun bans that would never work in the US, or to the extent they are, even pass constitutional muster), it sure as hell has enabled violent crimes to be as bad as they are with criminals knowing full well law abiding citizens won't be armed. You can squabble with yourself about what you believe to be ambiguous definitions of "rape" and "burglary". This leftist UK utopia, though, is a non-existent one. "Reality bites" indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 As the New Zealand study points out it is not possible to compare violent crime rates across countries given the varying offence definitions and numerous other factor unless you re-weight the data and take into account the different definitions. And when that is done you get very different results. And that study is neutral as it uses New Zealand as the base comparison between the UK and US rate. As that report points out the differences just in definitions can be massive. Look at the how New Zealnd comes out when the US model is applied and then that of the UK (England and Wales in this case). If you use the US definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 4): Number and rate per 100,000 population of violent offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the American definition of violent crime Number of offences recorded in NZ - 5095 Rate per 100,000 population in NZ - 132.6 If you use the UK definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 8): Number and rate per 100,000 population of violence offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the England and Wales’ definition Number of offences recorded in NZ - 46291 Rate per 100,000 population in NZ - 1204.5 Basically a difference of a factor of 9 times. Yes reality truly does bite, eh. But first you have to be able to recognize reality and that is a problem with your figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 it is all about legal definitions in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Yes, but what's stopping the lawfare waging statists from further redefining older style firearms, or staplers for that matter, as "assault" weapons? Look at Britain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 "Violent crime" has sub-classes like rape, homicide, and so forth. Enlighten us as to what the differing definitions of "rape" are that make England (and the UK in general) more safe than the US for since you believe you know so much. Also, quite a bit if irony when mentioned that the US' problem with violence are rather unique and here you are pointing out that two countries cannot be compared because their unique definitions of "violent crime". You better get what you call "reality" a check-up. Every time you use this word it's a blatant attempt to convince yourself of this more than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Yes, but what's stopping the lawfare waging statists from further redefining older style firearms, or staplers for that matter, as "assault" weapons? Look at Britain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks since 77 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 You can define assault weapons howsoever you wish. In the US it is a class of firearms that have certain defined characteristics and includes rifles, shotguns and handguns. In Canada we use classifications such as restricted and prohibited to describe controlled weapons and they are not just firearms: http://laws-lois.jus...2/FullText.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Circle talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derr12 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 How many of you or your family own a .22LR rifle for plinking? The AR-15 family of rifles shoots the .223 and it's well loved for the same purpose... plinking at the range. Also a capable deer rifle. Ammunittion is cheap and plentiful. It's easy to handle so smaller people, kids, and ladies can handle the recoil. It's the everymans rifle. Bleeding hearts. Kennedy was shot by an old italian bolt action,BAN ALL RIFLES WITH A BOLT ACTION IT IT!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 OH * people, How many of you or your family own a .22LR rifle for plinking? The AR-15 family of rifles shoots the .223 and it's well loved for the same purpose... plinking at the range. Also a capable deer rifle. Ammunittion is cheap and plentiful. It's easy to handle so smaller people, kids, and ladies can handle the recoil. It's the everymans rifle. Bleeding heart liberal *. Kennedy was shot by an old italian bolt action, * BAN ALL RIFLES WITH A BOLT ACTION IT IT!!!!!!! *Swear filter bypasses and inappropriate language removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie.the.Unicorn Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 2 2. Any instrument or device commonly known as “nunchaku”, being hard non-flexible sticks, clubs, pipes, or rods linked by a length or lengths of rope, cord, wire or chain, and any similar instrument or device. Who knew skipping ropes were prohibited in Canada? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 How many of you or your family own a .22LR rifle for plinking? The AR-15 family of rifles shoots the .223 and it's well loved for the same purpose... plinking at the range. Also a capable deer rifle. Ammunittion is cheap and plentiful. It's easy to handle so smaller people, kids, and ladies can handle the recoil. It's the everymans rifle. Bleeding hearts. Kennedy was shot by an old italian bolt action, BAN ALL RIFLES WITH A BOLT ACTION IT IT!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.