Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Daily)   Gun shows do not increase homicides or suicides. USA USA USA   (sciencedaily.com ) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

1712 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Oct 2008 at 6:41 AM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-10-07 09:53:38 AM  

dragonchild: dittybopper: That suggests a major cultural difference.

Uh, no, it's poverty, and that suggests to me that a lot of blacks live in poor areas. And what do you know; they do!

/Nice to know racism is alive and well


Well, let's see here: http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/hsc/briefs/eleven/default.htm

Hmm, West Virginia is the third poorest state in the Union and is predominantly white. In 2000, it had a firearms homicide rate of 3.2 per 100,000. That was lower than the national average.

It's nothing conclusive, but it may suggest that there are factors other than poverty that contribute to the relatively high rate of firearm-related homicides among the black population. It certainly disproves the notion that the only possible explanation for that high rate is poverty.
 
2008-10-07 09:55:26 AM  

BenchBucket: dittybopper: It breaks down like this:

Suicide by firearm:
White: 7.41
Black: 2.68

Homicide by firearm:
White: 1.43
Black: 17.71

Is it possible that the average white guy just sees spending a few years in prison as more of a deterrent than the average black guy does?


No, they just kill themselves before they can kill anyone, clearly.
/The only conclusion that can properly be made from those numbers alone
//I love stats
 
2008-10-07 10:00:04 AM  

GookNukem: It's nothing conclusive, but it may suggest that there are factors other than poverty that contribute to the relatively high rate of firearm-related homicides among the black population. It certainly disproves the notion that the only possible explanation for that high rate is poverty.


Get race out of the argument, and you'll do yourself a LOT of favors when talking to anyone.

You're right, there is another reason for high rates of violent crime in poor areas... POPULATION DENSITY.

The largest city in West Virginia is Charleston, with a population of LESS THAN 54,000 (2007 estimate).
 
2008-10-07 10:20:09 AM  
Regardless of race, laziness = crime.
 
2008-10-07 10:22:54 AM  

AiryAnne: Regardless of race, laziness = crime.


You could makle an argument that laziness breeds effeciency just as easily. If people weren't lazy, we never would have had the seed drill, or the tractor. Or the gun, for that matter.
 
2008-10-07 10:26:55 AM  

icstepec: glock


Why would anyone laugh at the glock 17? Its a very reliable, nice shooting 9mm pistol. If you want a semi-auto 9mm pistol, you could choose a LOT worse than that. I happen to like the glocks, but don't own one yet. I'll probably get one when I get tired of my .38 model 64 revolver.
 
2008-10-07 10:29:22 AM  
End the war on drugs. Prohibition gives control of the market to violent people.
 
2008-10-07 10:29:42 AM  
Gun show? I will roll up my sleeves!
 
2008-10-07 10:30:53 AM  

Director_Mr: icstepec: glock

Why would anyone laugh at the glock 17? Its a very reliable, nice shooting 9mm pistol. If you want a semi-auto 9mm pistol, you could choose a LOT worse than that. I happen to like the glocks, but don't own one yet. I'll probably get one when I get tired of my .38 model 64 revolver.


Too true. I've never shot a Glock that I didn't like. Even my BabyGlock 26 is reasonably accurate at the range, and it's not exactly made for target work. I used to think I didn't like the .45 caliber until I shot a Glock chambered for it. Unreal how comfortable it was. And you can beat the living crap out of them without them breaking. It's like the perfect gun for the average American who can't be bothered to clean or oil their weapon.
 
2008-10-07 10:32:45 AM  

GookNukem: Hmm, West Virginia is the third poorest state in the Union and is predominantly white. In 2000, it had a firearms homicide rate of 3.2 per 100,000. That was lower than the national average.


As joegekko says, WV is largely rural. I also prefer to use more detailed demographic data than using a state wholesale, as long as this isn't a 6th grade social studies paper.

There are many factors you can look at to explain homicide rates, and race is indeed one of them. But when a bigot looks at race first and last and sees violence as "cultural", that tends to limit the amount of reason that goes into the analysis.
 
US1
2008-10-07 10:33:08 AM  
www.travelling-gunshow.com
 
2008-10-07 10:34:45 AM  

joegekko: AiryAnne: Regardless of race, laziness = crime.

You could makle an argument that laziness breeds effeciency just as easily. If people weren't lazy, we never would have had the seed drill, or the tractor. Or the gun, for that matter.


No, one could not. laziness is the opposite of efficiency. Efficiency is being able to squeeze as much productivity out of a given situation. Perhaps you could argue that laziness breeds progress, as an industrious person can take advantage of laziness if he is intrepid enough to develop a product that allows more leisure time.
 
2008-10-07 10:43:42 AM  

Director_Mr: No, one could not. laziness is the opposite of efficiency.


Robert Heinlein would like to have a word with you.
 
2008-10-07 10:50:35 AM  
mandingueiro:
Failing_Junk: mandingueiro: so, why are there so many gun related homicides in the U.S?
/not blaming gun ownership.

Because guns are more convenient. UK has proven that sharp or pointy objects are a acceptable substitute for criminals though. The big difference is that an elderly person can defend themselves with a gun, but with sharp objects not so much.

the ratio of guns per persons does not exceed that of other countries...yet the U.S. has a disproportionate amount of gun violence when compared to other nations.


Actually, white America has a gun ownership level of around 10 times that of either the European average, or of any other socio-economic group here. We are one of the most highly armed groups on the planet. Our rate of gun crime, on the other hand, is significantly lower than even the European average.

America's gun crime problem is from other socio-economic groups that while having significantly lower rates of gun ownership have massively higher rates of gun crime. The basic story the statistics give you is that white America buys guns overwhelmingly for sport, for target shooting, or for personal defense. Other groups buy guns primarily for use in crime.

As for blaming it on poverty, again, the justice departments crime statistics simply do not bear that out. Poor whites in America have almost the same violent crime rates as wealthy whites. On the other hand, wealthy blacks have the same violent crime rates as poor blacks. It's not a wealth issue, it is cultural issue.
 
2008-10-07 10:50:45 AM  

R.A.Danny: Director_Mr: No, one could not. laziness is the opposite of efficiency.

Robert Heinlein would like to have a word with you.


That was what I was alluding to. I won't belabor the point any further (wrong thread and all), but I will say that industry for the sake of industry is almost always misplaced energy.

The idea is to work smarter so you don't have to work harder. Leaves more time to smell the roses and look at pretty girls.
 
2008-10-07 10:52:28 AM  
Suck it, retard democrats.
 
2008-10-07 10:57:58 AM  
The study focused on the geographic areas surrounding the gun shows, and would not capture the effect when weapons were transported more than 25 miles away. In addition, the data tracked the effects only up to four weeks after the gun shows, which would exclude later gun-related deaths.

So it's a completely useless study.
 
2008-10-07 10:59:07 AM  
If someone has intentions of killing another person do you really think that there is a difference between a gun, knife, brick, chainsaw, hammer, etc...?

People are the problem... ban them.
 
2008-10-07 11:01:24 AM  
i13.photobucket.com

/oblig
 
2008-10-07 11:02:16 AM  

mandingueiro: so, why are there so many gun related homicides in the U.S?
/not blaming gun ownership.


Because we're too easy on criminals.
 
2008-10-07 11:05:33 AM  

joegekko: jimb213: People will steal anything they can. But you don't have to worry about your personal safety. Violent crime is virtually a non-issue. The rates of murder, rape, assault, etc are an order of magnitude less in Nicaraguan and Namibian cities compared to comparably-sized US cities.

That may be the impression that people have, but it is incorrect. The murder rate for Namibia is 6.35 per 100,000, in the US it is 5.7 per 100,000. in nicaragua the rate is 12 per 100,000, more than double the murder rate in the US!

I think a lot of people not in the US have the impression that murder is rampant here because of our media, both entertainment and news.


huh. look at that. In my defense, the people I got that info from were specifically comparing city-to-city statistics, not national statistics, and they also specifically stated "violent crime" which includes assault and other crimes, not just homicide. so they may still be technically correct, although that obviously doesn't tell the whole story in light of your info.

Thanks for correcting me without the typical fark name-calling.
 
2008-10-07 11:08:36 AM  

joegekko: dittybopper: The point, though, is that it could be much lower if the family structure in those communities were more intact.

I think it's reasonable to assume that it would be lower if a traditional family structure were more common, at least inasmuch as it appeals to common sense.

But so far as I know, there haven't been any studues to show that changing the social and family structure of a given area will result in lower crime.

The single-parent or 'broken' home is become the norm in the United States, but in more affluent areas there just aren't the kind of high violent crime rates that we see in densely populated, poor urban centers.


Single parent homes are *MUCH* less prevalent in more affluent areas than in poor urban centers, and although there has been some 'catching up', it still isn't there by a long shot.

Note that there is a big difference between a two-parent family that is sundered by divorce, and one where there never was a husband/father at home in the first place.

According to the Annie E. Casey foundation, the single parent rate for whites is 23%, while it is 65% for blacks. The two populations with the lowest homicide rates, whites and asians, both have the lowest single parent rates, while the population with the highest homicide rates also has the highest single parent rate.

Correlation isn't causation, of course, but it is interesting and worthy of further study.
 
2008-10-07 11:12:57 AM  

jimb213: Thanks for correcting me without the typical fark name-calling.


Damn. I knew I forgot something.

"You talk like a fag, and your shiat's all retarded."

Whew. ;-)
 
2008-10-07 11:14:11 AM  

Philogogus: They took their weapons (the dealer did not even give him a receipt) and walked right out. Maybe 5 minutes for the entire transaction. Dollars to donuts these people would not have been allowed to get near a weapon if they had to go through a background check.

I was INFURIATED. I have never been back to a gunshow since (this was 5-6 years ago).


Are you suggesting that the transaction that you witnessed could not have occurred outside of a gun show?
 
2008-10-07 11:15:08 AM  

dahmers love zombie: Too true. I've never shot a Glock that I didn't like. Even my BabyGlock 26 is reasonably accurate at the range, and it's not exactly made for target work. I used to think I didn't like the .45 caliber until I shot a Glock chambered for it. Unreal how comfortable it was. And you can beat the living crap out of them without them breaking. It's like the perfect gun for the average American who can't be bothered to clean or oil their weapon.


My roommate is a glock nut. He's bought three in the last month. A 23, 23c compact (.40 s&w), and a 10mm (forgot the number). But hes an insufferable prick about it. I just got an H&K USP 40 and he gives me hell about my "inferior" gun. Its enough to make a body pour honey and fire ants on him in his sleep.
 
2008-10-07 11:18:47 AM  

Hollis the Utile: dahmers love zombie: Too true. I've never shot a Glock that I didn't like. Even my BabyGlock 26 is reasonably accurate at the range, and it's not exactly made for target work. I used to think I didn't like the .45 caliber until I shot a Glock chambered for it. Unreal how comfortable it was. And you can beat the living crap out of them without them breaking. It's like the perfect gun for the average American who can't be bothered to clean or oil their weapon.

My roommate is a glock nut. He's bought three in the last month. A 23, 23c compact (.40 s&w), and a 10mm (forgot the number). But hes an insufferable prick about it. I just got an H&K USP 40 and he gives me hell about my "inferior" gun. Its enough to make a body pour honey and fire ants on him in his sleep.


On what planet is a USP inferior to a Glock in any way.
 
2008-10-07 11:20:59 AM  

Psychomancer: Suck it, retard democrats.


What the hell?
I happen to know some 'democrats' who own guns. 'republicans' make this a wedge issue, not the other way around.

/pro gun ownership/
 
2008-10-07 11:21:40 AM  

potee: On what planet is a USP inferior to a Glock in any way.


Planet Cort apparently
 
2008-10-07 11:28:21 AM  

dragonchild: dittybopper: That suggests a major cultural difference.

Uh, no, it's poverty, and that suggests to me that a lot of blacks live in poor areas. And what do you know; they do!

/Nice to know racism is alive and well


It isn't poverty.

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

However, there were 5,325 white homicide victims in 2005, and 8,522 black homicide victims.
Source: CDC WISQARS Mortality Reports

That means that there are 52.6 white homicides per 100,000 poor whites, and 202.2 black homicides per 100,000 poor blacks.

Clearly, it isn't just poverty, or the "rates per poor person" would be roughly equivalent. It isn't, the black rates are 4 times higher.

Now, I associated the causes to cultural factors, mainly single parent families and lack of a stable father figure, not the melanin content of ones skin, but thank you for playing the race card and outing yourself.

[sarcasm]
It's nice to know that you can't have a serious discussion about the underlying causes of violence in the United States without someone calling you a racist.
[/sarcasm]
 
2008-10-07 11:32:33 AM  

dittybopper: Correlation isn't causation, of course, but it is interesting and worthy of further study.


My issue isn't really with the numbers, I can't argue that children from single-parent families seem to be more apt to get caught committing violent crimes.

I do get upset when part of the argument is race. It seems, in my un-scientific opinion, to be an unnecessary part of the argument. If further study is warranted (and it probably is), the focus should be on the family environment, not the family race.
 
2008-10-07 11:35:58 AM  

dittybopper: Clearly, it isn't just poverty, or the "rates per poor person" would be roughly equivalent. It isn't, the black rates are 4 times higher.


I'd bet real money (Canadian or Euro, none of this fakey US Dollar stuff (that's a joke)), that the majority of those poor anglos live in rural or semi-rural areas, not in dense urban areas.

I really do think that population density has more to do with violent crime than any other factor.
 
2008-10-07 11:38:15 AM  

Hollis the Utile: potee: On what planet is a USP inferior to a Glock in any way.

Planet Cort apparently


In all fairness, the USP costs considerably more and has more controls to screw up in a stressful situation.

That being said I'd rather have the USP. You can't argue with quality.
 
2008-10-07 11:42:17 AM  

joegekko: In all fairness, the USP costs considerably more and has more controls to screw up in a stressful situation.


I got my usp for 35 bucks more than his Glock 23. and some of those controls are there to prevent you from shooting yourself in the testicles in a stressful situation.

/also got 7 mags with the pistol
//have no idea why I would need 7 mags.
 
2008-10-07 11:42:35 AM  
Gun thread?

Out of curiosity... anybody know why this on the Geek tab? Seems like it should under Not News, or maybe Politics.
 
2008-10-07 11:46:55 AM  
joegekko:
dittybopper: Correlation isn't causation, of course, but it is interesting and worthy of further study.

My issue isn't really with the numbers, I can't argue that children from single-parent families seem to be more apt to get caught committing violent crimes.

I do get upset when part of the argument is race. It seems, in my un-scientific opinion, to be an unnecessary part of the argument. If further study is warranted (and it probably is), the focus should be on the family environment, not the family race.


Certainly discussing that aspect of it makes us all uncomfortable, but when it comes to the issue of US violent crime it MUST be discussed as that is how the stuff just statistically breaks down. Violent crime rates among blacks are over 10 times higher than with whites, and that holds across all economic boundaries. We may not like it, but that is where, statistically, these things break. The actual facts show that it is not the US in general that has a violent crime problem, it is black America that has a violent crime problem.

And when you see that, there HAS to be a reason -- unless one is willing to take the racist answer that this is something just inherent to blacks. I think noticing cultural things like the much, much higher rates of illegitimacy among blacks than other groups is trying to come at the problem from the right direction: neither blaming people for some inherent fault, but also not just ignoring the data where racial divisions are an obvious factor.
 
2008-10-07 11:47:02 AM  

Hollis the Utile: I got my usp for 35 bucks more than his Glock 23. and some of those controls are there to prevent you from shooting yourself in the testicles in a stressful situation.


Either he got raped on the Glock or you got a great deal on the USP. Either way you win, especially if the mags were a gimme.

Tell your roomie the internet sneers at him.
 
2008-10-07 11:50:23 AM  

Luthiel: Out of curiosity... anybody know why this on the Geek tab? Seems like it should under Not News, or maybe Politics.


Who cares? So far it seems to have kept the asinine partisan flamebaiting to a minimum. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
 
2008-10-07 11:52:09 AM  
I bought my first 'real' gun (22LR doesn't count) at a gun show. 45 ACP 1911; can't go wrong with that. To date, it's only killed paper targets.
 
2008-10-07 11:53:46 AM  

joegekko: Luthiel: Out of curiosity... anybody know why this on the Geek tab? Seems like it should under Not News, or maybe Politics.

Who cares? So far it seems to have kept the asinine partisan flamebaiting to a minimum. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.


True, but a gun thread on Fark just feels... unnatural without the trolls crawling out of the woodwork.
 
2008-10-07 11:55:58 AM  

joegekko: dittybopper: Clearly, it isn't just poverty, or the "rates per poor person" would be roughly equivalent. It isn't, the black rates are 4 times higher.


I'd bet real money (Canadian or Euro, none of this fakey US Dollar stuff (that's a joke))


I hope so. Dollar is at a 1 year high, and climbing.

, that the majority of those poor anglos live in rural or semi-rural areas, not in dense urban areas.

I really do think that population density has more to do with violent crime than any other factor.


You *MAY* be right, although I don't think that is a total explanation, because it ignores the large rural black population in the South, and it also ignores large poor urban white populations, which live in every city.

Besides which, it is easier to live at the *VERY* lowest poverty levels in a city: Living in a rural area means less infrastructure (roads, buses, etc.), fewer social programs and fewer dollars for the programs that do exist, the need for a working car to do any shopping or to hold a job, etc.

I doubt that the majority of whites living below 50% of the poverty level are in rural areas simply because it's untenable to live there at that level: The poverty level for a single person under age 65 is just under $11,000 a year. That means that 50% or below would be less than $5,500 a year in income, or approximately $105 a week.

That's "live off the land" level in rural areas, and I come from a poor white rural area and there aren't that many people living that kind of a lifestyle (well, except for my younger brother, but he CHOOSES to live that way).

I'm sticking with the cultural explanation for now, until I see actual evidence to the contrary.
 
2008-10-07 12:08:12 PM  

mandingueiro: Canada has a high rate of gun ownership...why isn't their gun homicide rate as high as ours?


Good question, although the Canadian gun ownership rate (22%) is less than half the American rate (49%).

Some interesting comparative stats on gun ownership and gun crime:

Firearms in Canada and Eight Other Western Countries: Selected Findings of the 1996 International Crime (Victim) Survey (new window)

Comparing American and Canadian homicide rates (HR) and firearm homicide rates (FHR) from 2000 to 2003, the average American HR (6.33 per 100k pop) was 354% that of the Canadian HR (1.79 per 100k pop). The American FHR (4.01 per 100k pop) was 749% that of the Canadian FHR (0.54 per 100k pop)
 
2008-10-07 12:09:29 PM  

Cato: joegekko:
dittybopper: Correlation isn't causation, of course, but it is interesting and worthy of further study.

My issue isn't really with the numbers, I can't argue that children from single-parent families seem to be more apt to get caught committing violent crimes.

I do get upset when part of the argument is race. It seems, in my un-scientific opinion, to be an unnecessary part of the argument. If further study is warranted (and it probably is), the focus should be on the family environment, not the family race.

Certainly discussing that aspect of it makes us all uncomfortable, but when it comes to the issue of US violent crime it MUST be discussed as that is how the stuff just statistically breaks down. Violent crime rates among blacks are over 10 times higher than with whites, and that holds across all economic boundaries. We may not like it, but that is where, statistically, these things break. The actual facts show that it is not the US in general that has a violent crime problem, it is black America that has a violent crime problem.

And when you see that, there HAS to be a reason -- unless one is willing to take the racist answer that this is something just inherent to blacks. I think noticing cultural things like the much, much higher rates of illegitimacy among blacks than other groups is trying to come at the problem from the right direction: neither blaming people for some inherent fault, but also not just ignoring the data where racial divisions are an obvious factor.


Exactly.

You will never find a statement by me that I think this is inherently due to race. I always argue that it's cultural.

I find it interesting that Asians seem to have the lowest crime rates in the US (Triads and such notwithstanding), lower than whites, and I don't attribute that to their race but their culture of hard work, valuing education, and the very strong family structure.

It's not that Asians are inherently better, it's that the culture that they receive through their parents encourages achievement.

Same thing with Jewish culture: The stereotype of Jews being either lawyers or doctors was created simply because as a culture, Jews tend to value education and business acumen, and thus tended to end up in those professions.

Note that I'm not blaming "black culture" either, because it isn't monolithic (and neither are the ones I talked about above), but a particularly corrosive and dangerous poor urban black culture.

I don't have a solution to the problem, by the way. I know what *WON'T* work (things like more gun control), but the solution to the problem has to come from the group that is having the issue.
 
2008-10-07 12:15:41 PM  

threedingers: mandingueiro: Canada has a high rate of gun ownership...why isn't their gun homicide rate as high as ours?

Good question, although the Canadian gun ownership rate (22%) is less than half the American rate (49%).

Some interesting comparative stats on gun ownership and gun crime:

Firearms in Canada and Eight Other Western Countries: Selected Findings of the 1996 International Crime (Victim) Survey (new window)

Comparing American and Canadian homicide rates (HR) and firearm homicide rates (FHR) from 2000 to 2003, the average American HR (6.33 per 100k pop) was 354% that of the Canadian HR (1.79 per 100k pop). The American FHR (4.01 per 100k pop) was 749% that of the Canadian FHR (0.54 per 100k pop)


That's an invalid comparison.

Canada has no city as large as the biggest US urban centers, where our homicide is concentrated.
 
2008-10-07 12:18:09 PM  
Gun shows do not increase homicides or suicides.

But the idiots who use them are a whole different story.
 
2008-10-07 12:18:25 PM  

threedingers: mandingueiro: Canada has a high rate of gun ownership...why isn't their gun homicide rate as high as ours?

Good question, although the Canadian gun ownership rate (22%) is less than half the American rate (49%).

Some interesting comparative stats on gun ownership and gun crime:

Firearms in Canada and Eight Other Western Countries: Selected Findings of the 1996 International Crime (Victim) Survey (new window)

Comparing American and Canadian homicide rates (HR) and firearm homicide rates (FHR) from 2000 to 2003, the average American HR (6.33 per 100k pop) was 354% that of the Canadian HR (1.79 per 100k pop). The American FHR (4.01 per 100k pop) was 749% that of the Canadian FHR (0.54 per 100k pop)


Damn Canadian guns are all frozen and don't shoot right.

/ Where's the gun pr0n? Post those pics!
 
2008-10-07 12:23:09 PM  

dittybopper: I don't have a solution to the problem, by the way. I know what *WON'T* work (things like more gun control), but the solution to the problem has to come from the group that is having the issue.


I don't think anyone does.

I have opinions on what I think could help. Things like expanding the Civilian Marksmanship Program and teaching theoretical firearm safety in schools, and encouraging shooting sports in youth programs like the Boy and Girl Scouts and the YMCA.

And, as bad as "gun crime" is in the US, we are overwhelmingly responsible with our firearms. I'd hate to see us lose this last line of defense due to the shenanigans of the very, very few.
 
2008-10-07 12:28:54 PM  

dj_bigbird: R.A.Danny: mandingueiro: the ratio of guns per persons does not exceed that of other countries...yet the U.S. has a disproportionate amount of gun violence when compared to other nations.

Look at it broken down by race. I am not saying those of African descent are more violent, I am saying that the huge income gap between blacks and whites has caused a vice-related economy that lends itself to a very high likelihood of violence. Take gang and drug related violence out of the picture and we're one of the more peaceful nations on earth.

Of course if this goes green I am going to be called racist, but that is not where my heart is.

Add to that the fact that gun control (when it started) was directly aimed at disarming blacks and the laws banning marijuana were directly aimed at blacks, too, and you have a heck of a mess.


Worth repeating.

We couldn't enslave them, or keep them out of our towns/schools/away from our wimmin, so we came up with the drug war.

Drugs are a high profit industry with a low entry barrier. Perfect for poor people. Making the drugs illegal means high profit margin and the substances contain even more dangerous impurities. It also gives cops something to do, there are departments dedicated to drug enforcement. It gives politicians something to be against. White people a way to despise blacks that is socially acceptable.

i dislike drugs and drug addicts, but not because of the laws against it. Decriminalizing and regulating drugs might mean fewer dead cops, lower taxes, fewer ppl in prison, reduction in the cool factor around drugs and so on. Most of the problems we associate with drugs are cause by the illegality, rather than the substances. While there are some drugs that are inherently dangerous for the user and are addictive, having an outlet for getting high without the other problems might serve the greater good.

As for guns, see poverty. i'm not a fan of guns or their owners, but most gun owners are normal, sane and law abiding. Our problem with guns is a direct result of the culture of fear instilled in us and how we fark over brown people.
 
2008-10-07 12:29:43 PM  

syrynxx: 45 ACP 1911; can't go wrong with that.


Well, IMHO, a Glock/XD/M&P would be a better choice for a defensive weapon. I love 1911's, and I have a pre-A1 Colt, but a lot of them tend to be a little temperamental. My XD Compact .45 is much more reliable unless I try to feed it semi-wadcutters.

/FWIW, my favorite pistol in the collection right now is a S&W model 422 (.22lr)
 
2008-10-07 12:30:52 PM  

Kickstart UF: The important thing to know is that no one is at home. I probably should have added that the couple be in their 60s or so, so their kids are out of the house too.


Hah.
 
2008-10-07 12:40:35 PM  

dittybopper: That's an invalid comparison.

Canada has no city as large as the biggest US urban centers, where our homicide is concentrated.


Largest Canadian cities:

Toronto (pops): 5,555,912
Montreal (pops): 3,635,571
Vancouver (pops): 2,524,113

Compared to the largest American cities (pops):

New York: 8,274,527
L.A.: 3,834,340
Chicago: 2,836,658

I'd say that unless the stats are heavily skewed by NYC, that my comparison is valid.

Furthermore, the Canadian urban population is 78% of the total (source (pops)), whereas the American urban population is 79% (source (pops)).

Your argument doesn't hold water, sorry.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report