Gun rights expanded

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Dutch gun law is typical of the Western European approach. Firearm possession is not subject to any constitutional protections, but regulated simply in the Arms and Ammunition Act (Wet Wapens en Munitie). Weapons, including firearms, are divided into four categories, and for each of the categories a certain maximum punishment is set for "voorhanden hebben" (possession), and "dragen" (carrying in public).

Only citizens who are members of hunting and shooting sports clubs may obtain licences for weapons. And even then they may only get a licence for category III weapons (sports weapons).

Firearm possession and use by the military and the police is not subject to Arms and Ammunition Act, but regulated separately.

Sale/Use is only for those age 18 or over. Gun ownership is extremely low with only three weapons per hundred people [1]
 
Topspin said:
that is a Hillbilly moron way to put it, thanks for the trailer trash mentality proving my point.
Click to expand...

LMAO!! Is that the best you have, brightboy? Come on, with all that education you keep bragging about I have managed to slap your argument down and show you are either lying or unable to comprehend what the statistics actually say.


In fact, here are some facts for you to dwell on.


Assault numbers for the 3 countries for 2002:

France - 106,484
UK - 723,886
USA - 2,238,480


Oh no! We have so many more assaults than they do!! We should ban.....um.......we should ban FISTS!!!
 
Topspin said:
Dutch gun law is typical of the Western European approach. Firearm possession is not subject to any constitutional protections, but regulated simply in the Arms and Ammunition Act (Wet Wapens en Munitie). Weapons, including firearms, are divided into four categories, and for each of the categories a certain maximum punishment is set for "voorhanden hebben" (possession), and "dragen" (carrying in public).

Only citizens who are members of hunting and shooting sports clubs may obtain licences for weapons. And even then they may only get a licence for category III weapons (sports weapons).

Firearm possession and use by the military and the police is not subject to Arms and Ammunition Act, but regulated separately.

Sale/Use is only for those age 18 or over. Gun ownership is extremely low with only three weapons per hundred people [1]
Click to expand...

The school shooting that is the subject of this thread was done with a hunting rifle. There are about 3 million plus hunters in the USA. If we banned all the rest of the guns, and people were still being killed, you would want to remove the hunting rifles next.


Have you ever seen any data on how many violent crimes were prevented by private citizens with guns?
 
Way less guns in Most Western European countries blows to fuck your stupidity on France.

Less guns = less murders only NRA memebers and hillbillies don't get it.
 
Topspin said:
Way less guns in Most Western European countries blows to @#$# your stupidity on France.

Less guns = less murders only NRA memebers and hillbillies don't get it.
Click to expand...

http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000144.html

"The number of gun crimes [in the Netherlands] has been relatively constant in the three years that the report covers (1998-2000). There have been 30 crimes with firearms committed per 100,000 inhabitants. There are huge regional variations. In Amsterdam the rate was 72 per 100,000 people, while in the rural provinces of Drenthe and Zeeland the rates were 14 and 13 respectively. The big cities have much higher crime rates than rural areas, so the higher incidence of gun crimes is no surprise.

How does this compare to America? The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports provide the answer. The UCR keeps track of gun use in three kinds of crime: murder, robbery and aggravated assault. There are 5.6 murders per 100,000 people in the US (page 19 of the linked PDF) with 63.4% involving firearms (table 2.9, page 23). Robberies run at 148.5 per 100,000 (p.32) with 42.0% involving guns (table 2.22, p.35). Aggravated assault occurs at a rate of 318.5 (p.36) with 18.3% gun use (table 2.24, p.38). This means that gun-related crime in the US runs at 124 per 100,000 people.

This is substantially higher than the 30 reported for the Netherlands, although the 72 rate in Amsterdam comes rather closer. But this is not the whole story. Does lower criminal gun ownership translate to lower crime rates overall? Looking at the FBI data in table 1 on page 64, the violent crime rate in the US was 504.4 per 100,000 inhabitants, while property crime ran at 3656.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. The Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics has crime numbers online, but not the crime rate. The table shows 101,143 violent crimes and 919,262 property crimes in 2001. With a population of 16,171,520 (September 2002), this works out as 625.4 violent crimes per 100,000 people and 5684.4 proprety crimes. Or, to put it differently, the violent crime rate in the Netherlands in 24% higher than in the US, and the property crime rate is 55% higher.

More guns, less crime. What a surprise."

I know it is a blog, but it is well documented. Won't do any good but had to put something here about the Dutch since Topper used them for and example. I just thank the good Lord that we ain't like Europe....in a lot of ways.
 
Topspin said:
Way less guns in Most Western European countries blows to fuck your stupidity on France.

Less guns = less murders only NRA memebers and hillbillies don't get it.
Click to expand...

Way less assaults in most western European countries too. Which shoots down you entire "But they do it better!" whining.

YOu have no data to back up your opinions, just the continued instistence that lower murder rates are caused by lower numbers of guns. And you ignore anything that disagrees with your pretend facts.

I think you have been arguing with SM so long that you have adopted his style of debate.
 
leaningright said:
http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000144.html

"The number of gun crimes [in the Netherlands] has been relatively constant in the three years that the report covers (1998-2000). There have been 30 crimes with firearms committed per 100,000 inhabitants. There are huge regional variations. In Amsterdam the rate was 72 per 100,000 people, while in the rural provinces of Drenthe and Zeeland the rates were 14 and 13 respectively. The big cities have much higher crime rates than rural areas, so the higher incidence of gun crimes is no surprise.

How does this compare to America? The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports provide the answer. The UCR keeps track of gun use in three kinds of crime: murder, robbery and aggravated assault. There are 5.6 murders per 100,000 people in the US (page 19 of the linked PDF) with 63.4% involving firearms (table 2.9, page 23). Robberies run at 148.5 per 100,000 (p.32) with 42.0% involving guns (table 2.22, p.35). Aggravated assault occurs at a rate of 318.5 (p.36) with 18.3% gun use (table 2.24, p.38). This means that gun-related crime in the US runs at 124 per 100,000 people.

This is substantially higher than the 30 reported for the Netherlands, although the 72 rate in Amsterdam comes rather closer. But this is not the whole story. Does lower criminal gun ownership translate to lower crime rates overall? Looking at the FBI data in table 1 on page 64, the violent crime rate in the US was 504.4 per 100,000 inhabitants, while property crime ran at 3656.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. The Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics has crime numbers online, but not the crime rate. The table shows 101,143 violent crimes and 919,262 property crimes in 2001. With a population of 16,171,520 (September 2002), this works out as 625.4 violent crimes per 100,000 people and 5684.4 proprety crimes. Or, to put it differently, the violent crime rate in the Netherlands in 24% higher than in the US, and the property crime rate is 55% higher.

More guns, less crime. What a surprise."

I know it is a blog, but it is well documented. Won't do any good but had to put something here about the Dutch since Topper used them for and example. I just thank the good Lord that we ain't like Europe....in a lot of ways.
Click to expand...



Here Topper, let me help you argue this point.


But there are more murders in the US than in France of England, and they banned guns. If you can't understand that you are a GEDer or a hillbilly!!!


There you go, I saved you some time.
 
laugh out loud, less assaults defeats less murders. Please share your drugs.

You can argue not to reduce gun rights, but arguing less guns does not equal less murders is like arguing bikes are faster than cars.
 
Topspin said:
laugh out loud, less assaults defeats less murders. Please share your drugs.

You can argue not to reduce gun rights, but arguing less guns does not equal less murders is like arguing bikes are faster than cars.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you actually went to college??

The point was not that assaults and murders are the same. The point was that the USA is a more violent society. Considering the stuff I have seen you post, I thought you would have understood that.

My mistake. Next time I will use smaller words.
 
I'm not talking assualts, nice diversion.
You claimed cultural diff France and England. Which was sophmorically weak. I added statements of other western European countries with less guns all have WAY LESS MURDERS PER CAPITA BECUASE THERE ARE LESS GUNS.
 
Topspin said:
I'm not talking assualts, nice diversion.
You claimed cultural diff France and England. Which was sophmorically weak. I added statements of other western European countries with less guns all have WAY LESS MURDERS PER CAPITA BECUASE THERE ARE LESS GUNS.
Click to expand...

proof that topper could care less if your wife or daughter is raped, just that they can't kill their rapist with a gun.
 
Topspin said:
laugh out loud, less assaults defeats less murders. Please share your drugs.

You can argue not to reduce gun rights, but arguing less guns does not equal less murders is like arguing bikes are faster than cars.
Click to expand...

I think someone already tried to point this out but here goes again... From your premise:

Less guns = less murders Conclusion: Outlaw guns

SO

Less alcohol = less alcohol related deaths. By your logic we should outlaw alcohol....Let's go Carrie Nation on everyone!!

Less driving = less vehicle related deaths. By your logic we should outlaw vehicles or drive the price of gas way up....wait a minute, you've already proposed that haven't ya? mmm....OK

Less snowboarding = less snowboarding deaths or brain injuries. Again, by your logic we should ban snowboarding.

Less marijuana = less brain damage (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269256,00.html) By your logic.....wait, maybe that's where your logic comes from....:)
 
Just trying to apply your logic. All (but MJ) are legal. None are necessary. All cause deaths prematurely when misused. Ban 'em all or ban none.
 
Topspin said:
I'm not talking assualts, nice diversion.
You claimed cultural diff France and England. Which was sophmorically weak. I added statements of other western European countries with less guns all have WAY LESS MURDERS PER CAPITA BECUASE THERE ARE LESS GUNS.
Click to expand...

I claimed a cultural difference and then showed ample evidence of it. The fact that the USA has far more assaults than England or France shows we are more violent, whether guns are involved or not.

I did not try to show causation, which is what you did. My evidence works fine for what I wanted to show . Yours is not.
 
I admit it's a pipe dream that I have and it's never going to happen.

Guess I should buy stock in smith and Wesson?
 
leaningright said:
I think someone already tried to point this out but here goes again... From your premise:

Less guns = less murders Conclusion: Outlaw guns

SO

Less alcohol = less alcohol related deaths. By your logic we should outlaw alcohol....Let's go Carrie Nation on everyone!!

Less driving = less vehicle related deaths. By your logic we should outlaw vehicles or drive the price of gas way up....wait a minute, you've already proposed that haven't ya? mmm....OK

Less snowboarding = less snowboarding deaths or brain injuries. Again, by your logic we should ban snowboarding.

Less marijuana = less brain damage (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269256,00.html) By your logic.....wait, maybe that's where your logic comes from....:)
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure alcohol causes more brain damage than Marijuana. I thought Marijuana was limited to exacerbating mental disorders?
 
That link doesn't say that MJ causes brain damage. It says that one of the symptoms of MJ is paranoia... something that has been known since the stone ages.
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
That link doesn't say that MJ causes brain damage. It says that one of the symptoms of MJ is paranoia... something that has been known since the stone ages.
Click to expand...
Would people still be paranoid if it wasn't illegal? I'm pretty sure that particular side effect would be eliminated by simply making it legal. I'll bet it was a side effect to drinking alcohol during prohibition...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top