Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roseeurekacross said:
who is we? which country?

after working that out, lets see the stats
Click to expand...
I was referencing the U.S. , and the stats I refenced are spread out in three articles I posted/ quoted from, but you can look up the pdf article from Harvard Law. Key in the words, “guns”, “crimes”, and “Harvard”.
 
Yours, i.e., you brought up New Zealand, moreover the socio-economic/cultural situation in both countries vary, therefore what may be true in one country may not be applicable to another. But from the research gathered from domestic and international sources, there is no positive correlation between more gun ownership and an increase in crime.
 
Last edited:
josie_L said:
what may be true in one country may not be applicable to another. But from the research gathered from domestic and international sources, there is no positive correlation between more gun ownership and an increase in crime.
Click to expand...
True. Gun ownership in Mexico is far lower than it is in the U.S., and gun laws there are very tough. Yet, the murder rate per capita in Mexico is three times what it is in the U.S. Undoubtedly there are reasons for that, and probably people have studied it. But gun ownership does not correlate with the murder rates in those countries.
 
Ridgerunner said:
You don’t pay the costs of victims of crime. They do. A number of states, including mine, have “crime victims compensation funds” assessed against convicted criminals. But the serious criminals pay nothing, largely because they can’t. Otherwise, the victims pay for it.
Click to expand...
Where exactly do you think the states get the money from?
Ridgerunner said:
I’m no more special than you are. You have a right to own a gun just as I do. If you don’t want to be able to protect yourself, that’s your business.
Click to expand...
I’m able to protect myself just fine, I just know owning a gun won’t make a difference. But if a gun makes you feel tough, you have the right to it. You just don’t have a right to my property for your right.
 
Jig_Saw said:
You don’t pay the costs of victims of crime. They do. A number of states, including mine, have “crime victims compensation funds” assessed against convicted criminals. But the serious criminals pay nothing, largely because they can’t. Otherwise, the victims pay for it.

Where exactly do you think the states get the money from?

I just told you. The funds for the Crime Victims Compensation Fund comes from criminals or from nobody. The public certainly doesn’t pay it.

Ridgerunner:

I’m no more special than you are. You have a right to own a gun just as I do. If you don’t want to be able to protect yourself, that’s your business.

I’m able to protect myself just fine, I just know owning a gun won’t make a difference. But if a gun makes you feel tough, you have the right to it. You just don’t have a right to my property for your right.
Click to expand...
Think what you want about your own ability to protect yourself.

My right to have a gun costs you nothing but being resentful of it for no reason.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Think what you want about your own ability to protect yourself.

My right to have a gun costs you nothing but being resentful of it for no reason.
Click to expand...
I will. I’m sure you think I can’t as most gun owners seem to think of non-gun owners, but I tend to think that most gun owners vastly overestimate their ability to handle a weapon well and are likely much more dangerous to themselves and their families than to an actual threat. And, it’s that overestimate of one’s ability that does, in fact, cost me my property.
 
I am not in New Zealand .

But shall we compare the the crime rates per capita between both countries?

Also there is no gun crime if there are no guns. Can’t shoot and kill without a gun
 
Jig_Saw said:
I’m sure you think I can’t as most gun owners seem to think of non-gun owners
Click to expand...
Actually, I rarely thing of non-gun owners at all. People who have guns are not obsessed about those who don’t. They have a right to not have any guns, just as I have a right to have them.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Actually, I rarely thing of non-gun owners at all. People who have guns are not obsessed about those who don’t. They have a right to not have any guns, just as I have a right to have them.
Click to expand...
Good. As long as you bare the cost of the gun ownership and don’t expect me to give up my right to property, then we have an understanding.
 
Jig_Saw said:
As long as you bare the cost of the gun ownership and don’t expect me to give up my right to property, then we have an understanding.
Click to expand...
I fully bear the cost of my own gun ownership. I do not expect that to cause you any expense whatever, and it doesn’t.
 
What is the process in USA for removing guns from people who become unwell? Here the police can seize them.

There used to be an old farmer who lived on the hill above the fire truck shed. He took great delight in shooting it’s windows out. It became quite an issue.

Shooting at the windows and hitting fire truck and potentially any people in the shed
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
What is the process in USA for removing guns from people who become unwell? Here the police can seize them.

There used to be an old farmer who lived on the hill above the fire truck shed. He took great delight in shooting it’s windows out. It became quite an issue.

Shooting at the windows and hitting fire truck and potentially any people in the shed
Click to expand...
Off topic a bit, but this reminded me of something. We lived in the country when I was a kid. My dad told me that before my time, an old man on a piece of creek bottom property next to ours used to sit in front of his house with a rifle on his lap when the weather was nice. His father had been a Union soldier. Up on a hill opposite lived an old man whose father had been a Confederate soldier.

Now and then the “Union” guy would take a shot toward the “Confederate” guy on the hill when he saw him up there. The “Confederate” buy would shoot back. It went on for years, but neither ever hit the other, though my dad was convinced at least the “Union” guy was a good shot.

The two men attended the same country church and, in that context, got along well enough. I guess the thing was just a reminder to both of them that the Civil War wasn’t really quite over.
 
Jig_Saw said:
Good news. Make sure you have good insurance and we’re good.
Click to expand...
Don’t need it for intentional shootings because I don’t intend ever to do it. Don’t need it for unintentional shootings either, because I’m careful to make sure there are hills backdropping every shot I make, and I don’t shoot into the air, ever.

All the same, I carry liability for any negligent act, and an umbrella policy besides. It is certainly true that a gun owner has some potential liability if he uses it. I am not yet persuaded, however, that insurance would cover an intentional act.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Don’t need it for intentional shootings because I don’t intend ever to do it. Don’t need it for unintentional shootings either, because I’m careful to make sure there are hills backdropping every shot I make, and I don’t shoot into the air, ever.

All the same, I carry liability for any negligent act, and an umbrella policy besides. It is certainly true that a gun owner has some potential liability if he uses it. I am not yet persuaded, however, that insurance would cover an intentional act.
Click to expand...
As long as the liability covers what might happen as a result of your weapons, it should be good. Furthermore, I am sure that you properly secure your weapon to prevent it from being stolen as that seems to be quite a problem with gun owners. As I said, responsible gun owners would have little to fear from being required to buy insurance, but it will protect my right to property.
 
Ridgerunner said:
True. Gun ownership in Mexico is far lower than it is in the U.S., and gun laws there are very tough. Yet, the murder rate per capita in Mexico is three times what it is in the U.S. Undoubtedly there are reasons for that, and probably people have studied it. But gun ownership does not correlate with the murder rates in those countries.
Click to expand...
Cherry picking a country to support a statistical claim.
 
Jig_Saw said:
As long as the liability covers what might happen as a result of your weapons, it should be good. Furthermore, I am sure that you properly secure your weapon to prevent it from being stolen as that seems to be quite a problem with gun owners. As I said, responsible gun owners would have little to fear from being required to buy insurance, but it will protect my right to property.
Click to expand...
My gun ownership in no way threatens your property, and wouldn’t even if I had no insurance at all. But I’ll admit that anybody who doesn’t carry liability insurance is a stone fool, but not because of gun ownership. In a society as litigious as ours, a person ought to keep a substantial amount of liability insurance and also do everything he can to make himself judgment proof.

In my particular case, my risks are auto liability and farm liability. I’m a million times more likely to get sued if a cow of mine gets out on the road than I am from owning a gun.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
True. Gun ownership in Mexico is far lower than it is in the U.S., and gun laws there are very tough. Yet, the murder rate per capita in Mexico is three times what it is in the U.S. Undoubtedly there are reasons for that, and probably people have studied it. But gun ownership does not correlate with the murder rates in those countries.

Cherry picking a country to support a statistical claim.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but clearly gun ownership is not the cause in this particular case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top