tankgirl said:
If you hold up Britain as an example why not look next door at Canada?
Canada's laws aren't as restrictive as Britain's.
tankgirl said:
What you can't deny now, is the fact that I have provided plenty of proof, albeit from my p.o.v. - however with various different sources to back it up. But i know you don't want to hear, and therefore are deaf to any slightly reasonable thing I might have to say. All I can say is pull your head out of the ground and take a look around, preferably other media though at your own risk.
You have provided no proof whatsoever to counter my data. Only proof that some people do not like Fox news. In fact, when shown the data from the US Justice Department, you actually downplayed it. Perhaps you were too busy being emotionally upset to look at facts, and make a logical conclusion?
tankgirl said:
You're all nuts! Yeah,thats my conclusion cos I just can’t work out the rationality of it Maybe its a subliminal phallic identification with the gun that keeps you going?
So now the problem you have is quite apparant. You hate men. Perhaps if you were more open-minded, you'd see that, but, I guess this will be attacked, rather than thought on as well...
tankgirl said:
Yah, Funne(h)! That’s precisely what your arguments are based on. I could hardly blame you considering your geographical positioning and the exposure you have to the overdramatic parade of statistics and bias in the media.
We live in a culture increasingly dependent on the manufacture of fear in political and media (ie: corporate) strategy. SO what do those that are completely influenced and kept in a state of fear and cultural hysteria do? Turn to your guns for security – the very things that kill and cause terror in the first place.
I take that back. Your arguments are only based on ignorance.
I'll show that here, buried in your quote from snopes.com...
tankgirl said:
claims that the 1997 gun ban in Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at
www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends. "Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect,
since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." (source). Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback (source).
Notice the phrase in bold, and, especially, italics. You know what that means? That gun ownership has didddly to do with the homicide rate in Australia. Holy cow! Perhaps you posted this without understanding it!
tankgirl said:
A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun (source). Guns simply make it easier to kill. Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide. "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide."
Nice. You contradicted your earlier quote with that one. Also...what is the source of this? You quoted a rather blatant site whose sole purpose is to overturn the second amendment. Nice try, but totally suspect. Show me the raw data they used to come up with these statistics, such as the US department of Justice, and you might have something. BTW...the pdf documents you use as sources are irrelevant because they are not data. They are opinions expressed by people who have a vested interest in controlling the population through the government.
Please don't tell me you read all 199 pages of that piece of crap because I
will call you out on it...
BTW...all of your research comes from 1 source in Britain, and one source in the US. The source I used, the US Department of Justice, was comprised of 50 states worth of Police Departments, with thousands of hours of actual work. Find something useful to counter this, as opinions are not facts, regardless of how you spin them.
