Question for anti-gun:

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

spartan231490:

Hagi:
Here's the thing.

People pro gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does not work.

People anti gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does work.

Why are your 'facts' better than their 'facts'?

What studies? Show me one. I couldn't find any, and I spent 2 or 3 hours looking. I found dozens of studies showing conclusively no relation between increased gun control and lower gun crime, I couldn't find a single one that showed that increased gun control reduced crime.
Show me one.

Just look through all the gun-control thread already here, plenty of posters putting up decent arguments for either side.

There's also this very human tendency of confirmation bias.

farson135:

Hagi:
It's simple arrogance to believe you have the answers and know exactly how things work in matters as complicated as this. Not to mention incredibly close-minded because you believe the matter closed with yourself in the right.

This whole thing isn't nearly so simple as you make it out to be, matters like this almost never are.

First of all, since when does the phrase "socio-economic cultural elements" imply exactness or simplicity?

Anyway, the matter is complicated, but the matter has nothing to do with firearms.

That's a bit of a contradiction...

If it's complicated you can't just say that firearms have nothing to do with it. It being complicated means there's many contributing factors, even if they're not apparent.

And you can't say that America's history of little gun-control won't have any effect on the the socio-economic cultural elements of that country. Likewise Europe's stricter gun laws will have some effect on the socio-economic cultural elements of those countries.

FEichinger:
Knowing that the US citizens will never change and rather shoot each other during such a shooting than making sure it isn't as bloody easy for the shooter to get his guns, I'll just laugh my ass off here.

Right, instead of making sure we can defend ourselves let us make sure the guy who booby-trapped his entire apartment cannot get a firearm. I am sure that will decrease the casualties.

Next up, I'd like to point a nice thing out:
Why don't you get one thing into that thick skull: Giving everyone a gun just asks for someone using it in a fit. Brawls in bars? Nope: Shootings!

My town has a 100% gun ownership rate and has maintained a 0% murder rate for the past 150 years. How many bars are still in town? Three still standing but there were around five or six when I was a kid.

Also, hunting rifles in every car around the school. Never a school shooting.

agression + firearm = high probability of said firearm being used

There are an estimated 750,000 legal defensive guns uses in the US per year and according to the FBI there are only about 200 justified homicides per year- http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_15.html

Looks like most DGUs are simply brandishing cases.

Every time there's a shooting like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, I see people casting blame at videogames, the doctors, the failure of the movie theater to put a security system on their exit door -- but somehow suggesting the fact that these people were sold devices capable of pointing at someone and ending their life is totally off-limits. That just seems so contrary to logic that I can't even wrap my head around it.

My little sister was watching news coverage of the Aurora shooting with me, and they talked about how he had a flack jacket, tear gas, handgun, shotgun, rifle -- she asked "How did he even GET all that stuff?" She was completely flabbergasted. I said, "He bought them at the store," like it was the most natural thing in the world.

Maybe we need to correlate gun-purchasing data better -- perhaps within the law enforcement database. Like maybe if you buy more than one gun, you go on a list somewhere. And if you buy another, you get points and go up on that list. And if you buy a few more, or a bullet-proof jacket, or if cops respond to a domestic situation at your home, you get even more points. Maybe past a certain number of points, you raise a red flag in a database somewhere. Maybe somebody who owns four hand-guns, has a history of spousal abuse, and was arrested for drunk and disorderly a year ago, maybe that guy goes on a watch-list. Maybe somebody who stockpiles guns and ammo over a short time-frame of six months, like James Holmes did, trips an alarm somewhere, and local police are asked to knock on his door and just see if everything is on the level.

I don't know.

But the idea that asking what role easy access to guns plays in a MASS SHOOTING is somehow off-limits? I can't understand that. It's the elephant in the room. If a 2-year-old stabbed some kid at his preschool with a steak knife over an argument concerning legos, your first question wouldn't be "what the fuck is wrong with this kid" or "do legos cause violence" -- it would be, "who the fuck gave this two year old a knife?"

spartan231490:

Nikolaz72:

spartan231490:

For example, the murder rate of the UK, despite being increasingly under-reported, "the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban"
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Here's some on Australia:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

Russia has a higher murder rate than the US and stricter gun control.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/russia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Further, China and Japan have extremely

So we are in agreement then. Culture has more of an effect than Guns and Americans should keep being able to shoot eachother and Europeans shant, I am glad we had this discussion. That being said, it probably rose from other factors than the disapperance from guns, because if we hae to compare the US to the UK instead of the UK to the UK. The ammount of homocide victims is still way lower. So I accept the Culture-defense from the american rightwing extreme far more often than the pointing-fingers one.

I guess. Gun control has no impact on crime regardless of where it is enacted though. UK could remove it's stringent gun control and be crime rates wouldn't rise. I don't care if you do, but that's what the evidence says.

Actually no, A lot more people would get shot. What I was saying is that readding guns to European countries would mean our Homocide would jump up one thousand times to the level of the US. But that the US cant remove their because, well.. Theres so many of them in the US that if they removed them now they would have a large black market for years to come. Despite your false misconceptions about Europe, getting a gun here isnt easy. Even illigaly. Getting a gun in America is very easy. And if guns were banned, even more easy to get one illegaly.

Hagi:
If it's complicated you can't just say that firearms have nothing to do with it. It being complicated means there's many contributing factors, even if they're not apparent.

The fact that there are many contributing factors does not mean that irrelevant factors can simply be added in.

And you can't say that America's history of little gun-control won't have any effect on the the socio-economic cultural elements of that country. Likewise Europe's stricter gun laws will have some effect on the socio-economic cultural elements of those countries.

And those effects are irrelevant to crime rates. Look, if we look all over the world we find that there is no consistent correlation between guns and crime. People try and just use the US but the US has special circumstances. As do all nations. If guns are relevant then there should be a lot of evidence for it. Instead the numbers are all over the board which implies that if there is a correlation then it is effectively irrelevant (like the gravitational force between me and my computer).

Serbia has a murder rate of 2.2 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 58.2 per 100 while Lithuania has a murder rate of 5.6 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 0.7 per 100.

Norway has a murder rate of 0.7 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 31.3 per 100 while the UK has a murder rate of 1.2 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 6.7 per 100.

Yemen has a murder rate of 4.0 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 54.8 per 100 while Jamaica has a murder rate of 39.0 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 8.1 per 100.

Iceland has a murder rate of 0.3 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 30.3 per 100 while Denmark has a murder rate of 1.0 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 12.0 per 100.

Murder and non-negligent homicide Austin- 4.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide El Paso- 0.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide Washington D.C.- 21.9

Violent crime Austin- 475.9
Violent crime El Paso- 458.3
Violent crime Washington D.C.- 1,241.1

Population Austin-796,310
Population El Paso- 624,322
Population Washington D.C.- 601,723

Gun ownership rate of the state of Texas- 35.9
Gun ownership rate of Washington D.C.-3.8

Kalikin:
I'm not American, nor particularly gun-anything, but I thought I'd add my seldom-heard voice to the din that is the Escapist's new favourite topic.

I think it would take a really special kind of gun fanatic to claim guns don't facilitate, or even empower people to commit, violent crime. And what could be more common-sense than the idea that if you remove the main instrument in those crimes, those crimes would decrease?
It's that very thing that I think is the problem, though - and it may even be reflected in the statistics in the OP (although it doesn't specify an increase in GUN related crime, so it's hard to tell).

The point is that when, "between 70 and 80 million Americans" own guns, restricting the sale of guns isn't going to do much when the gun population is already so huge - and any attempt to take guns away from people who purchased them before the new laws came into place would be somewhere between completely useless to extremely inefficient, and of debatable legality in any event.

Then there's the issue of the right to carry a weapon. Frankly, if that many people own weapons, then there are bound to be some owners with the disposition to go and commit a crime with it, so restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying a weapon really is depriving them of protection.

TL/DR: With the gun population is America being as large as it is, sales restrictions would probably be of limited use; restricting the right to carry would be counterproductive for the same reason.

Common sense says that the world is flat, that doesn't mean it's correct. All the evidence supports the assertion that gun control doesn't reduce crime. The murder rate in the UK has been steadily rising for 40 years despite more and more stringent gun control, nothing has curbed the increase.

elvor0:
The one that gets me is "It's to stop the government taking over!" That would've made sense when the constitution was written, when people had muskets and there was an even chance that if they wanted to, the people could've overthrown the Government. It is now 2012, your handgun isn't going to amount to shit if the government (for some insane reason) decides it's going to become 1984, the government has Predator Drones, Tanks, Airstrikes, an Airforce, a Navy, Nukes and whatever other Heavy Artillery it has available, if they wanted to take over, they could do it and no amount of NRA members is going to be able to stop them.

The thing is, people are legally and easily able to buy guns, for example The Joker guy, bought all of his ammunition and stuff off of the frikkin internet. Were it not that easy for him to get his equipment, it most likely wouldn't have happened, and although there are criminal means for people to acquire guns, you have to have contacts, likely pay more and have to deal with shady characters to do so.

Criminals are always going to be able to get hold of stuff, but they would have to rob an army supply centre or what not in order to get stuff beyond handguns and hunting rifles. Not only that, some middle class dude with a hand gun is not going to be able to face down a gang packing mac-10s, he might get a potshot off and kill one of them, then he's just going to get riddled with bullets.

Guns don't just magically come into existence, they have to come from somewhere, you can at least impose some difficulty on things by limiting what civilians are allowed to buy, in the UK you can get a .22 rifle after extensive checking and tests, no ones massacaring anything with that, one shot and then he's got to reload, works okay-ish for hunting and shooting ranges and that's about it. Beyond that Farmers may apply for a shotgun license to defend their livestock.

You barely ever get stories of gun massacres in the UK, because no one gets any access to them, so it fucks me right off when people say "Oh well you get knife crime!!11!" Yeah, which may lead to one person getting stabbed, not a massacare where loads of people get killed and horribly injured. Not only that, it's utter hyperbole, you can't take away knives, it's an integral tool to so many things, fishermen, chefs, cooking, etc etc. Guns primary purpose is that of a weapon, a knife is on the other hand a tool.

I agree that you should be able to defend your house, but how likely /are/ you to do that? Most of the time you're going to just have it sitting there, not doing anything, unless you've been trained and are a very calm individual, you're unlikely to be much of a threat to someone willing to rob your house. A gun is not like having a bat, it's a very powerful and scary weapon to be pointing at another human, and you better be sure you're prepared to pull the trigger, or any knowledgeable criminal is going to just going take it away from you.

Cartels and organized crime rings are going to be able to get guns, but your average gas station robber, would likely not be able to get hold of a decent gun if it wern't so easy to just walk into Ammu-nation and buy one.

However on the flip side, there's just so /many/ guns in America at this point, that it's gone beyond just clamping down on selling them, there needs to be a massive overhaul, and I'm not sure what that would be.

And just to add, I'm in a bit of an awkward position, I -like- playing with guns, there's something I dunno... sexy about them. In the same way people like cars, and tinkering with the engines, there's just something about them as technology, the sleakness and that mechanical click, so it's not like I hate guns and want them all destroyed, but as we can plainly see, people are cunts and can't be trusted.

Read even one of the links in the OP. Guns are used in self defense millions of times each year in the US alone.

Gavmando:
Sigh.

Oh America. The problem isnt so much the guns. The problem is that you guys just want to kill each other. Your murder rates are insane. If you take away guns, it will make it harder for you to kill each other. Which, i'm 99.9% sure, will reduce your murder rates.

It's simple. Less guns = less gun related death.
As for why you guys want to kill each other? I'm too tired right now to touch that one...

While I see the logic and somewhat agree, isn't that more like attacking a symptom instead of the cause of the problem?

Yes, as other people have said, aggression is the key-factor. Many males here in America have this big thing relating to respect and making sure they get it and god help you if you disrespect them because you CANNOT disrespect them! Don't you insult them! They're the best thing since sliced bread, goddammit! Their mommas told them so! TV tells them so! They won't stand by lethargically as you insult their dignity and honor! Dad said don't let anyone push him around and he's certainly not gonna let anyone push him around! FISTICUFFS! FISTICUFFS I SAY! QUEENSBURY RULES! Put 'em up! Let's go!

Yes. The above is stupid, childish, sad, and all-too-common. It needs to stop. The mentality of America needs to shift, and sometimes I think it's in the process of doing so, which is why so many people are whining and flailing and gnashing their teeth about morals and values and whatnot. If two kids won't play nice? Yes, taking away toys can be an effective form of punishment. But in a sense it's giving a man a fish. They learn nothing from it short of 'if we argue in front of mommy/daddy we get our toys taken away.'

Changing the way they think, teaching kids to share as opposed to automatically dividing between 'mine' and 'theirs', takes longer. Yes, some people never do understand it. But in the long run it produces greater results. You're teaching the man to fish and he can feed himself.

Taking away guns is a short-term fix. I've no doubt we'd find a way to kill eachother with anything we have around. (Ask any prison-guard who's ever been shanked.) If you want to fix the problem of violence, you have to change the way people think to get the best results.

Kragg:

look im not even going to try and debate a guy who has "Explosives can solve any problem" as a motto, so just drop it

It's because it helped out Tom Cruise sooo much.
image

EDIT: Not to mention explosives (TNT I'm looking at you) is that amazing little thing designed for peace that turned into a terrible thing used for war and your excuse for not arguing with me just seems petty.

teknoarcanist:
Every time there's a shooting like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, I see people casting blame at videogames, the doctors, the failure of the movie theater to put a security system on their exit door -- but somehow suggesting the fact that these people were sold devices capable of pointing at someone and ending their life is totally off-limits. That just seems so contrary to logic that I can't even wrap my head around it.

Well, all of that is bullshit.

My little sister was watching news coverage of the Aurora shooting with me, and they talked about how he had a flack jacket, tear gas, handgun, shotgun, rifle -- she asked "How did he even GET all that stuff?" She was completely flabbergasted. I said, "He bought them at the store," like it was the most natural thing in the world.

Actually he did not buy it at a store. The gas he made and he never had a flak jacket. He had a "tactical urban assault vest" which is basically a vest with magazine pouches in it,

But the idea that asking what role easy access to guns plays in a MASS SHOOTING is somehow off-limits? I can't understand that. It's the elephant in the room. If a 2-year-old stabbed some kid at his preschool with a steak knife over an argument concerning legos, your first question wouldn't be "what the fuck is wrong with this kid" or "do legos cause violence" -- it would be, "who the fuck gave this two year old a knife?"

It is not off limits it is just irrelevant. The guy booby-trapped his apartment. The Columbine shooters built 4 different bombs (they did not go off). Would the theater shooting have been better if the guy threw a bag filled with explosives into the theater? Would the Columbine incident have been better if the guys had spent more time on their bombs and less on their guns? I do not think so.

Constantly the same bullshit. "There are much more cases of legitimate gun use!" "If they fear a gun in that house/room/whatever, they won't attack!" "Less guns = more crime!"

I wonder ... How about ... a) relying on your fucking police force for once? b) Having less of the country governed by bloody fear?

It does not matter how many times a gun is used in self-defense rather than agressively (and even the stats on that can be doubted - after all, "stand your ground" allows a headshot for trespassing, amirite? ;) ).
It doesn't matter whether or not guns and crime are in direct correlation.

But you can't tell me with a straight face that you need more guns to "defend yourself", when the easy access to guns caused the issue in the first place.

Actually, LEOs are very poorly trained when it comes to the use of firearms. On average they have to train around 40 hours at the academy and then take a refresher 2-4 times a year. The refresher is target shooting so easy that I got a 97% on it while using a firearm that I was unfamiliar with and, what I found out later was, I absolutely hated (the course offered to allow us to use their guns and I had never used a Glock before). I have trained more on shotguns (the firearm that I use the least) than your average 20 year vet has trained on all of his firearms combined.

I am a professional marksman. Your average LEO is not.

BTW this Principle managed to stop this attacker before he killed more people. Do you think things would have been better if the police just handled it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

Once again, yes I do think that the police should have handled that, but only because if guns were actually controlled, the 16 year old would have never been able to do this, which I'm sure you'll agree is a good thing. Again, I don't want to get rid of all guns, just stop selling them to any old punter with $300 and a week to wait.

farson135:

Murder and non-negligent homicide Austin- 4.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide El Paso- 0.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide Washington D.C.- 21.9

Violent crime Austin- 475.9
Violent crime El Paso- 458.3
Violent crime Washington D.C.- 1,241.1

Population Austin-796,310
Population El Paso- 624,322
Population Washington D.C.- 601,723

Gun ownership rate of the state of Texas- 35.9
Gun ownership rate of Washington D.C.-3.8

Funny story about El Paso, TX.... the violence from Ciudad Juarez tends to bleed over at times... but, yea, very low numbers... just saying they would be lower is all.

Those aren't facts and that evidence is not overwhelming.

farson135:

Hagi:
If it's complicated you can't just say that firearms have nothing to do with it. It being complicated means there's many contributing factors, even if they're not apparent.

The fact that there are many contributing factors does not mean that irrelevant factors can simply be added in.

And you can't say that America's history of little gun-control won't have any effect on the the socio-economic cultural elements of that country. Likewise Europe's stricter gun laws will have some effect on the socio-economic cultural elements of those countries.

And those effects are irrelevant to crime rates. Look, if we look all over the world we find that there is no consistent correlation between guns and crime. People try and just use the US but the US has special circumstances. As do all nations. If guns are relevant then there should be a lot of evidence for it. Instead the numbers are all over the board which implies that if there is a correlation then it is effectively irrelevant (like the gravitational force between me and my computer).

Serbia has a murder rate of 2.2 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 58.2 per 100 while Lithuania has a murder rate of 5.6 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 0.7 per 100.

Norway has a murder rate of 0.7 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 31.3 per 100 while the UK has a murder rate of 1.2 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 6.7 per 100.

Yemen has a murder rate of 4.0 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 54.8 per 100 while Jamaica has a murder rate of 39.0 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 8.1 per 100.

Iceland has a murder rate of 0.3 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 30.3 per 100 while Denmark has a murder rate of 1.0 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 12.0 per 100.

Murder and non-negligent homicide Austin- 4.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide El Paso- 0.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide Washington D.C.- 21.9

Violent crime Austin- 475.9
Violent crime El Paso- 458.3
Violent crime Washington D.C.- 1,241.1

Population Austin-796,310
Population El Paso- 624,322
Population Washington D.C.- 601,723

Gun ownership rate of the state of Texas- 35.9
Gun ownership rate of Washington D.C.-3.8

You can't just do a univariate analysis like that unless it's in a controlled environment...

It requires a multivariate analysis with many, many, many variables.

You're working under the assumption here that all factors involved are completely independent of each other and there is no interaction between them, for which you've absolutely no proof.

There could easily be variables which interact with gun-ownership to reduce or nullify whatever effects it has. This does not make gun-ownership an irrelevant variable, on the contrary.

There could easily be variables which interact with gun-ownership to increase whatever effects it has. This also does not make gun-ownership an irrelevant variable.

There's dozens more possibilities in which gun-ownership could interact with all sorts of variables, have a significant effect and still produce those numbers you listed.

It's also entirely possible that you're right and gun-ownership is indeed an irrelevant variable.

But without data we currently have absolutely no means of obtaining and analysis we currently have no way of performing there's no conclusive proof to be found in matter concerning human behaviour on this scale.

It only shows ignorance to claim otherwise.

spartan231490:

Common sense says that the world is flat, that doesn't mean it's correct. All the evidence supports the assertion that gun control doesn't reduce crime. The murder rate in the UK has been steadily rising for 40 years despite more and more stringent gun control, nothing has curbed the increase.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/murder-rate-falls-crime-figures

murder rate has dropped actually and that biased study you linked in the OP was from the 90s, when drugcrime actually went up

im not even gonna start talking about the fact that murderrate is so low that there is no comparing the 2

and for gunsmith guy

murders in texas in 2010 : 1246 on pop of 25,674,681
murders in UK in 2011 : 648 on pop of 62,641,000

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/2011/07/14/murders-2011-british-murders-homicides-and-fatal-violence-mapped/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

there is no reasoning with you two

spartan231490:
There is no evidence to suggest that stricter gun control reduces the crime rate, violent crime rate, murder rate, or even suicide rate.

And no one is saying it does. It does however reduce guncrime...

And that's pretty much it.

Guns are very effective killing tools, you make it harder for criminals to get their hands on them and you've basically handicapped their proficiency.

spartan231490:
Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object.

Tell that to coconuts.

I'd just like it noted that I don't have a damn thing against guns. I just can't stand to see the lunacy that this debate brings up.

Granted on both sides. But it's just insane.

A gun thread that hasn't broken down into yelling at each other? I'm in. I suggest everyone read this editorial on pro-gun rhetoric as I think it will do everyone a bit of good, although I do admit that everyone in this thread seem to be doing an infinitely better job of having a decent conversation about gun laws, I still think it is important to read.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/

IMO the essence of the problem is that there are TOO MANY guns in the country (from my observations as a Canadian) and that of course gun laws will not affect much from the get go due to the fact that guns have been incredibly easy to access for decades and have been saturated through the American population, both criminal and legitimate citizens. But the fact of the matter is that by not attempting to do *anything* about the problem, no solution will ever be found and mass shootings like the one in Colorado will continue to happen, and gun violence will never be quelled. The United States has an insanely high gun violence rate even when you take into consideration its high population, so there clearly is a problem that needs to be addressed.

And to address the point about criminals disregarding any future gun laws, the point isn't that the gun laws will deter criminals, the point is that gun laws will make access to guns even more difficult thereby reducing the amount of firearms in a region which would lead to lower gun crime. The black market can only do so much to supply criminals, but by making it insanely easy for literally anyone to get a gun, criminals have to jump through a lot fewer hoops in order to abuse firearms. Anyhow, that's my two cents.

Hagi:

You can't just do a univariate analysis like that unless it's in a controlled environment...

It requires a multivariate analysis with many, many, many variables.

You're working under the assumption here that all factors involved are completely independent of each other and there is no interaction between them, for which you've absolutely no proof.

There could easily be variables which interact with gun-ownership to reduce or nullify whatever effects it has. This does not make gun-ownership an irrelevant variable, on the contrary.

There could easily be variables which interact with gun-ownership to increase whatever effects it has. This also does not make gun-ownership an irrelevant variable.

There's dozens more possibilities in which gun-ownership could interact with all sorts of variables, have a significant effect and still produce those numbers you listed.

It's also entirely possible that you're right and gun-ownership is indeed an irrelevant variable.

But without data we currently have absolutely no means of obtaining and analysis we currently have no way of performing there's no conclusive proof to be found in matter concerning human behaviour on this scale.

It only shows ignorance to claim otherwise.

agreed and that frustrates me most, there is no way to properly talk about this yet still people try to force their opinion as fact with some inconclusive "proof"

that said, i'm out of this topic, have fun

Nikolaz72:

spartan231490:

Nikolaz72:

So we are in agreement then. Culture has more of an effect than Guns and Americans should keep being able to shoot eachother and Europeans shant, I am glad we had this discussion. That being said, it probably rose from other factors than the disapperance from guns, because if we hae to compare the US to the UK instead of the UK to the UK. The ammount of homocide victims is still way lower. So I accept the Culture-defense from the american rightwing extreme far more often than the pointing-fingers one.

I guess. Gun control has no impact on crime regardless of where it is enacted though. UK could remove it's stringent gun control and be crime rates wouldn't rise. I don't care if you do, but that's what the evidence says.

Actually no, A lot more people would get shot. What I was saying is that readding guns to European countries would mean our Homocide would jump up one thousand times to the level of the US. But that the US cant remove their because, well.. Theres so many of them in the US that if they removed them now they would have a large black market for years to come. Despite your false misconceptions about Europe, getting a gun here isnt easy. Even illigaly. Getting a gun in America is very easy. And if guns were banned, even more easy to get one illegaly.

The evidence doesn't support that. When the UK banned guns, murder rates went up. I'm not suggesting these are linked, I am merely saying that the ban obviously didn't reduce the murder rate. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest they would go up if you legalized them. It's not about can't, it's about there being no reason to. There is no evidence, on a state or international level, that increased gun control decreases the murder rate, even a gun ban.

spartan231490:

MASTACHIEFPWN:
On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object. Secondly, guns are used in murders alone fare more often in the US than this source indicates.

Citation needed.

You go through all the trouble of posting all those nice links, but you haven't done your research enough to actually refute a counter argument beyond "You're wrong"? I'm happy to hear you out, my opinions on gun control are pretty well formed but I am always ready to hear other people out. But simply saying "you're wrong" isn't going to win any one over and just makes you look like a child.

Hagi:

spartan231490:

Hagi:
Here's the thing.

People pro gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does not work.

People anti gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does work.

Why are your 'facts' better than their 'facts'?

What studies? Show me one. I couldn't find any, and I spent 2 or 3 hours looking. I found dozens of studies showing conclusively no relation between increased gun control and lower gun crime, I couldn't find a single one that showed that increased gun control reduced crime.
Show me one.

Just look through all the gun-control thread already here, plenty of posters putting up decent arguments for either side.

There's also this very human tendency of confirmation bias.
snip

I did look, there isn't any evidence. If you think there is, link it to me, otherwise I will have to assume you don't have any.

Kragg:

spartan231490:

Common sense says that the world is flat, that doesn't mean it's correct. All the evidence supports the assertion that gun control doesn't reduce crime. The murder rate in the UK has been steadily rising for 40 years despite more and more stringent gun control, nothing has curbed the increase.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/murder-rate-falls-crime-figures

murder rate has dropped actually and that biased study you linked in the OP was from the 90s, when drugcrime actually went up

im not even gonna start talking about the fact that murderrate is so low that there is no comparing the 2

and for gunsmith guy

murders in texas in 2010 : 1246 on pop of 25,674,681
murders in UK in 2011 : 648 on pop of 62,641,000

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/2011/07/14/murders-2011-british-murders-homicides-and-fatal-violence-mapped/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

there is no reasoning with you two

Texas shares the border with Mexico which is in the midst of a drug war that tends to spill over onto US soil. The fact that the numbers stay as low as they do in Texas is amazing to say the least.

spartan231490:
*snip*

Whoopedy-do. That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't affect overall murder rates. Not to mention the fact that as I put in my OP, mass-shootings are very often stopped by armed citizens. Less guns=/= less crime. If you don't believe me, go find a legitimate scientific study that disagrees.

So basically you've created a topic to dictate your view and you'll push aside everyone who disagrees at all? Thats not a discussion and thus makes the topic a waste of space if your not going to take on others opinions.
To clarify, I'm not saying guns should be banned outright, but they do need to be heavily regulated so that those irresponsible and dangerous can't get their hands on them. I also don't believe an assault rifle can be classified as a "defensive weapon". Pistol, maybe, M4A1 never.

And less guns does mean safer streets, I just gave you an example and your reply is "Whoopedy-do", I don't know about you but in my books places being shot up are classified as serious crimes, thus the fact a country full of guns having alot of such incidents vs a country that doesn't have relaxed gun laws not having shootings is evidence proving that our gun laws do protect it's citizens from such dangers. I'm not saying it stops muggings or robbery, (which frankly are less serious crimes than shootings), but they do reduce &/or eliminate shootings.

Statistics from Australian institute of criminology:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

Notice that since the 1990s when our laws were changed that the number of crimes involving guns has dropped drematically, and homicide in general has been going down. So theres statistical proof that in Australia the guns laws have made a clear difference.

spartan231490:

Nikolaz72:

spartan231490:

I guess. Gun control has no impact on crime regardless of where it is enacted though. UK could remove it's stringent gun control and be crime rates wouldn't rise. I don't care if you do, but that's what the evidence says.

Actually no, A lot more people would get shot. What I was saying is that readding guns to European countries would mean our Homocide would jump up one thousand times to the level of the US. But that the US cant remove their because, well.. Theres so many of them in the US that if they removed them now they would have a large black market for years to come. Despite your false misconceptions about Europe, getting a gun here isnt easy. Even illigaly. Getting a gun in America is very easy. And if guns were banned, even more easy to get one illegaly.

The evidence doesn't support that. When the UK banned guns, murder rates went up. I'm not suggesting these are linked, I am merely saying that the ban obviously didn't reduce the murder rate. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest they would go up if you legalized them. It's not about can't, it's about there being no reason to. There is no evidence, on a state or international level, that increased gun control decreases the murder rate, even a gun ban.

Actually the UK's murder rates are very low. But they've always been low.

Gun control isn't a fix all solution sure enough. But it does make it harder for people to kill each other.

As Hagi said earlier, there is no concrete way to test exactly what effect gun control has on crime rates because there are far too many variables within each country for it to be a fair test.

From social attitude to effectiveness of policing, socio economic stability, employment rates etcetera etcetera etcetera.

You say there's no evidence for it, but there's no evidence against it either because you can't compare apples and oranges.

We do know one thing however, increased gun control means less guns.

I've said this earlier today but to my knowledge since the 80's there have only been 3 mass murders in the UK where firearms were used. And the death toll on those incidents were 3 times higher than the fourth highest mass murder in the UK. Which was 5.

You take away easy access to guns and you reduce how effective these psychos are.

Kragg:

spartan231490:

Common sense says that the world is flat, that doesn't mean it's correct. All the evidence supports the assertion that gun control doesn't reduce crime. The murder rate in the UK has been steadily rising for 40 years despite more and more stringent gun control, nothing has curbed the increase.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/murder-rate-falls-crime-figures

murder rate has dropped actually and that biased study you linked in the OP was from the 90s, when drugcrime actually went up

im not even gonna start talking about the fact that murderrate is so low that there is no comparing the 2

and for gunsmith guy

murders in texas in 2010 : 1246 on pop of 25,674,681
murders in UK in 2011 : 648 on pop of 62,641,000

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/2011/07/14/murders-2011-british-murders-homicides-and-fatal-violence-mapped/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

there is no reasoning with you two

Yes, your murder rate fell in recent years, but before that, it's been skyrocketing. I linked a page(the truefacts page) that has the reported murder rate as reported by UK police officers, it's been skyrocketing since the 60s, only started to go down the last couple of years, long long after the gun bans had been put into effect.

Congratulations, the UK has a lower murder rate than the US. It has nothing to do with guns, the UK murder rate was lower than the US murder rate way back before repeating rifles when gun laws were virtually the same everywhere. Switzerland has almost as many guns as the US and their crime is so low they don't even keep statistics. It's a culture thing. Go look at my truefacts link in the OP. It's not biased, it's a quality controlled source site.

As to the bias of the link I posted, the head researcher was originally a pro-gun control researcher, but he changed his opinion upon seeing the data.

That isn't evidence, it's not a study, they are facts that can't be used to draw a conclusion until the are put into context.

Show me a study.

farson135:

teknoarcanist:
Every time there's a shooting like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, I see people casting blame at videogames, the doctors, the failure of the movie theater to put a security system on their exit door -- but somehow suggesting the fact that these people were sold devices capable of pointing at someone and ending their life is totally off-limits. That just seems so contrary to logic that I can't even wrap my head around it.

Well, all of that is bullshit.

My little sister was watching news coverage of the Aurora shooting with me, and they talked about how he had a flack jacket, tear gas, handgun, shotgun, rifle -- she asked "How did he even GET all that stuff?" She was completely flabbergasted. I said, "He bought them at the store," like it was the most natural thing in the world.

Actually he did not buy it at a store. The gas he made and he never had a flak jacket. He had a "tactical urban assault vest" which is basically a vest with magazine pouches in it,

But the idea that asking what role easy access to guns plays in a MASS SHOOTING is somehow off-limits? I can't understand that. It's the elephant in the room. If a 2-year-old stabbed some kid at his preschool with a steak knife over an argument concerning legos, your first question wouldn't be "what the fuck is wrong with this kid" or "do legos cause violence" -- it would be, "who the fuck gave this two year old a knife?"

It is not off limits it is just irrelevant. The guy booby-trapped his apartment. The Columbine shooters built 4 different bombs (they did not go off). Would the theater shooting have been better if the guy threw a bag filled with explosives into the theater? Would the Columbine incident have been better if the guys had spent more time on their bombs and less on their guns? I do not think so.

It's not a question of intent. Of course he still would have done something insane -- he's insane. It's a question of degree of damage. Do you think this guy would have done nearly as much damage -- 14 dead and over 50 wounded -- if he hadn't had the ability to buy purpose-made tools-for-killing at Wal-Mart? Do you honestly think he would attempted the same thing, to the same degree of "success", with home-made explosives? Should we go ahead and sell grenades and shrapnel vests and bomb disposal kits at the store, because "the psychos" are going to build bombs anyway, and goldernit we need to be able to defend ourselves from them?

More importantly: do you think if we sold grenades at the drugstore that instances of murder-by-explosive-device would rise? I think they would.

spartan231490:
As for north Hollywood, the cops aim sucks then. Head-shots aren't as hard as they're made out to be. The human head is comparable in size to the kill-zone on many game animals, hunters hit that target from 500 yards plus no problem. That's discounting arm and leg shots, which are even easier

Okay. Take that hunting rifle and remove it's stock so that there is no shoulder support and no cheek-weld. Remove the scope and put short radius sights - front sight and back sight a few inches apart - just like in a handgun (faster acquisition but poor precision). Move the deer to (say) 30 feet. But instead of having the deer still, munching on some plants, put the deer moving at human speeds.

And most importantly: get the deer to shoot back at you.

Your aiming *will* suck, period.

monkey_man:
I don't think it's weird that America has the greatest incarceration percentage of the world

Let's not compare penal systems. In Portugal there are rapists and child molesters walking away because we think that Probation will just change the way their brains work.

Trying to bring the penal system into this is just pouring liquid oxygen on the fire.

spartan231490:

BeanDelphiki:

spartan231490:
but, to address your comment on body armor: body armor is far from universal bullet protection. Firstly, someone probably would have hit him in the head. Also, body armor doesn't protect the legs, and a leg shot will, if not stop a shooter, it will slow him down and distract him enough to let people escape. That's assuming he's on drugs, if he's not a few hits to the legs or arms will stop him.

If you seriously think that in a crowd of panicked, scrambling people in a dark room filled with tear gas that someone would have correctly identified the shooter and "probably would have hit him in the head," you're utterly insane.

I've seen multiple people suggest now that more guns would have somehow helped the situation, and I thought they were all idiots. But you're the very first to be confident that someone in that dark, gassy room would have actually gotten off a head shot on a guy wearing black from head to toe.

...I'm so thankful to live in a country where it's hard to get a gun and people don't immediately jump to the idea that "more guns" are EVER any kind of answer to violence. The U.S. must be a terrifying place to live. I will never move there, that's for sure.

Say what you want, the evidence is on my side. Go find a single legitimate study that correlates more guns with more crime.

I love that you didn't address my first two paragraphs at all.

Firearm violence has done nothing but decline in Canada since stricter gun control laws were enacted here. That's extremely easy info to find. Note that I said firearm violence specifically. Stabbing violence rose, of course, but I'd love to see an argument that stabbings are more likely to be fatal than shootings, or that a violent criminal who stabs his victims is likely to have multiple victims at a time. "More guns don't equal more crime," in no way addresses the nature of the crime.

spartan231490:

Hagi:

spartan231490:

What studies? Show me one. I couldn't find any, and I spent 2 or 3 hours looking. I found dozens of studies showing conclusively no relation between increased gun control and lower gun crime, I couldn't find a single one that showed that increased gun control reduced crime.
Show me one.

Just look through all the gun-control thread already here, plenty of posters putting up decent arguments for either side.

There's also this very human tendency of confirmation bias.
snip

I did look, there isn't any evidence. If you think there is, link it to me, otherwise I will have to assume you don't have any.

One google search later...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.974

And yes, you can easily point out many flaws with these studies. That's my entire point. Just because there's a study about it, either in favour or against, doesn't automatically make it a fact that gun-control either works or does not.

We simply do not have all the information required nor the means to obtain it to come to any substantiated conclusion on this matter. There are so many variables involved and there's no way to conduct any relevant experiments in controlled environments that the best we can do is educated guesses. These are better than nothing but guesses all the same.

None of these studies, either in favour or against, provide any conclusive evidence on the matter.

Abandon4093:

spartan231490:
There is no evidence to suggest that stricter gun control reduces the crime rate, violent crime rate, murder rate, or even suicide rate.

And no one is saying it does. It does however reduce guncrime...

And that's pretty much it.

Guns are very effective killing tools, you make it harder for criminals to get their hands on them and you've basically handicapped their proficiency.
snip

Do you even see the logical fallacy in that statement. If strict gun control took guns away from criminals and made them less effective, then at the very least, the murder rate would be reduced by strict gun control. It isn't. There is no evidence that gun control reduces crime, and that's what matters. If I'm going to be murdered, I'd rather be shot than stabbed or poisoned, it's usually quicker and almost always less painful. If banning guns doesn't save people from crime, how can you justify it? Someone who was raped, robbed, or murdered, doesn't care if the criminal had a gun or a crowbar, they are just as raped or robbed or murdered. Gun control doesn't reduce the incidences of these events, and so there's no reason for strict gun control.

spartan231490:

Nikolaz72:

spartan231490:

I guess. Gun control has no impact on crime regardless of where it is enacted though. UK could remove it's stringent gun control and be crime rates wouldn't rise. I don't care if you do, but that's what the evidence says.

Actually no, A lot more people would get shot. What I was saying is that readding guns to European countries would mean our Homocide would jump up one thousand times to the level of the US. But that the US cant remove their because, well.. Theres so many of them in the US that if they removed them now they would have a large black market for years to come. Despite your false misconceptions about Europe, getting a gun here isnt easy. Even illigaly. Getting a gun in America is very easy. And if guns were banned, even more easy to get one illegaly.

The evidence doesn't support that. When the UK banned guns, murder rates went up. I'm not suggesting these are linked, I am merely saying that the ban obviously didn't reduce the murder rate. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest they would go up if you legalized them. It's not about can't, it's about there being no reason to. There is no evidence, on a state or international level, that increased gun control decreases the murder rate, even a gun ban.

As much as I am loath to admit it, he is largely correct. The reason why is because most criminals who buy guns don't buy there guns through legitimate means anyways. This is actually why I support access to guns. Now unlike Spartan here I am actually a proponent of gun control programs, if you make guns accessible but have a registration program for them you can at least track the weapon if it is used in a crime. But all an outright ban does is create a black market.

That being said, I am in full agreement that the amount of gun deaths in the US is created by there gun culture. But we have just as many guns in Canada and yet have fewer gun crimes, even with the recent violence in Toronto. Legalizing guns in Europe would not drive up the murder rate by any significant amount in most of Europe, because you just don't have the culture for it.

To put the context in something more local for European readers, guns and IEDs being illegal did absolutely nothing to stem the IRA.

But the problem of guns and gun control has never actually been about murder rates and it's a strawman to insinuate that it is. If some one really wants some one else dead, they're going to find a way, it's an uncomfortable reality. More than anything gun control is about collateral. Because stats that do go down when you have proper and effective gun control is accidental death by gun, which are always the higher then the murder rate by gun violence.

I'm a prairie boy myself. I've fired many a gun in my day. There was a brief time in my life where I lived on a remote Indian Reservation where the only reliable way to get food was to wonder into the woods and kill it yourself. If we didn't have guns we would have starved. I am all for people having guns. But guns need to be handled responsibly, because when they aren't, people can get hurt or killed. That means that before you allow some one to handle a gun, you need to make sure they have the knowledge and skill to use and keep it responsibly.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Facts/moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf

http://www.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/issues/C_USMY03.html

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/tenmyths.html

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/summaries/dandurand-eng.htm

spartan231490:

Abandon4093:

spartan231490:
There is no evidence to suggest that stricter gun control reduces the crime rate, violent crime rate, murder rate, or even suicide rate.

And no one is saying it does. It does however reduce guncrime...

And that's pretty much it.

Guns are very effective killing tools, you make it harder for criminals to get their hands on them and you've basically handicapped their proficiency.
snip

Do you even see the logical fallacy in that statement. If strict gun control took guns away from criminals and made them less effective, then at the very least, the murder rate would be reduced by strict gun control. It isn't. There is no evidence that gun control reduces crime, and that's what matters. If I'm going to be murdered, I'd rather be shot than stabbed or poisoned, it's usually quicker and almost always less painful. If banning guns doesn't save people from crime, how can you justify it? Someone who was raped, robbed, or murdered, doesn't care if the criminal had a gun or a crowbar, they are just as raped or robbed or murdered. Gun control doesn't reduce the incidences of these events, and so there's no reason for strict gun control.

It doesn't reduce the fact that violent crimes occur. It reduces the efficacy. No one's saying "guns cause murder" -- they're saying for those already intent to commit murder, guns are very efficient tools.

If I go on a rampage with a knife, and if I go on a rampage with a gun, those are two very different scenarios. In one, two people get shanked. In the other, 14 people die and 50+ get gravely wounded.

A Distant Star:

spartan231490:

MASTACHIEFPWN:
On average, 14 people are killed by a gun in the UK every year.
Over 9000 people are killed by a gun every year in the US.
*Shrugs sholder*
However, I am begining to doubt my source, mainly because it states that over 180% of the UKs population does drugs.
180 percent- out of 100 percent.

EDIT: It may also be because there really aren't too many countries with effictive gun control/police systems.

I mean, the only country I can name off the top of my head with gun control is the UK, and if you only take examples from control variable that small, you might get some bias.

We don't know enough about it to say for sure, is my point.

You're source is very wrong. Firstly, no one is killed by a gun anywhere, it's an inanimate object. Secondly, guns are used in murders alone fare more often in the US than this source indicates.

Citation needed.

You go through all the trouble of posting all those nice links, but you haven't done your research enough to actually refute a counter argument beyond "You're wrong"? I'm happy to hear you out, my opinions on gun control are pretty well formed but I am always ready to hear other people out. But simply saying "you're wrong" isn't going to win any one over and just makes you look like a child.

Google it, I'm pretty sure it's in several of my links in the OP, but I don't remember which. I don't remember the exact number but there were about 12,000 gun murders in the USA in 2010. here, since you're so lazy I'll google it for you: here, 11,493 gun murders from the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

I put all of this data in the OP. Forgive me if I don't feel the need to cite something that a quick google search will tell you in 2 minutes in every one of the probably 4 dozen responses I've made today. The data is in the OP, if you're too lazy to look it up I don't have much pity for you. It's not even a study or something controversial, it's a statistic, easily reference-able, and so far above his number that exact specifics are irrelevant.

Gavmando:
Sigh.

Oh America. The problem isnt so much the guns. The problem is that you guys just want to kill each other. Your murder rates are insane.

Finally someone sane.

Gavmando:
If you take away guns, it will make it harder for you to kill each other. Which, i'm 99.9% sure, will reduce your murder rates.

It's simple. Less guns = less gun related death.

I take it back. First, let's not mention that gangs can just create their own guns in machine shops (back in 2004, an Australian gang was producing Owen submachineguns and silencers) and just assume that guns require huge factories and legit businesses.

If you take away guns... people will resort to knives and bats. Heck, I don't need a background check to buy propane tanks. I just need to break into people's houses and turn people into ashes instead of shooting. A bit harder, but it will do the trick.

If I want to just turn vigilante... A flare gun, a steel insert to contain the pressure and prevent my fingerrom disappearing, a little gunpowder/blackpowder and a blank cartdridge will do the trick. Single shot weapon, easily disposable.

Less guns = less gun related deaths. Which is the same thing as saying less cars = less car crashes. Booze and drugs can be created easily compared to illegal cars.

Which is correct. There are no two ways to it. So I agree with your last sentence.

But I don't agree that less guns = less deaths.

spartan231490:

Abandon4093:

spartan231490:
There is no evidence to suggest that stricter gun control reduces the crime rate, violent crime rate, murder rate, or even suicide rate.

And no one is saying it does. It does however reduce guncrime...

And that's pretty much it.

Guns are very effective killing tools, you make it harder for criminals to get their hands on them and you've basically handicapped their proficiency.
snip

Do you even see the logical fallacy in that statement. If strict gun control took guns away from criminals and made them less effective, then at the very least, the murder rate would be reduced by strict gun control. It isn't. There is no evidence that gun control reduces crime, and that's what matters. If I'm going to be murdered, I'd rather be shot than stabbed or poisoned, it's usually quicker and almost always less painful. If banning guns doesn't save people from crime, how can you justify it? Someone who was raped, robbed, or murdered, doesn't care if the criminal had a gun or a crowbar, they are just as raped or robbed or murdered. Gun control doesn't reduce the incidences of these events, and so there's no reason for strict gun control.

There's no logical fallacy.

People can still choose to murder someone if they don't have a gun.

What I'm saying is that removing guns would reduce the amount of deaths by guns.

That's a pretty solid assumption yes?

Guns make people efficient killers. I think you'd certainly see a drop in the amount of people being killed, especially by accident, if there was stricter gun control. Obviously criminals would find alternative means to rob, rape, pillage and murder, but they certainly wouldn't be as effective at killing people, especially in masses.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked