Gun Rights v. Gun Control | A look at the facts.

[dracemia]

I am just saying, similar murder rates for similar sized populations. Whereas China's murder rate is ridiculously low for how big a population they have, which I attribute to higher intelligence among common people.

It could be because their police carry assault rifles and can open fire on any civilian they considered a threat to the cop's welfare. They're as close to a communism country a country could be without officially claiming to be one.

I think you forgot to take into accounts, the fact that the governmental background of China and the US are vastly different.

 

[GhostThruster]

Lets put it at this; high IQ is the result of high GDP, good education, and good living standards. On the other end, gun-related murders, as well as support for guns in general is the result of poor education, a paranoid culture, and a highly capitalist state.

Intelligence does not determine how peaceful a country is. China still has many issues regarding human rights and such.

 

[Nuclear]

I would argue that in order to achieve high IQ, the GDP must rise before it in order for the environmental effects to become more positive. It would be foolish to say that wealthy countries are wealthy because their population has a high IQ caused by heritage alone, when first world countries are clearly privileged on many fields.

 

[RiotZ]

Lets put it at this; high IQ is the result of high GDP, good education, and good living standards.

Bad living standards, okay violence, low GDP okay violence, bad education okay violence. How does intelligence not make a country more peaceful based on everything you just said.

For the finale fuck's sake, when I say peaceful I mean lower murder rate... Not human rights.

On the other end, gun-related murders, as well as support for guns in general is the result of poor education, a paranoid culture, and a highly capitalist state.

I wouldn't go that far. Most people intend to use guns for self-defense, they may or may not be educated folk.

It could be because their police carry assault rifles and can open fire on any civilian they considered a threat to the cop's welfare. They're as close to a communism country a country could be without officially claiming to be one.

I think you forgot to take into accounts, the fact that the governmental background of China and the US are vastly different.

No, I think I stated earlier, on 2 occasions, the only way to solve this is with better education and less lenient laws, perhaps some ethnic cleansing. Definitely a nod to Communism.

Exact quote...

There is no reasonable fix for this, other than ethnic cleansing, ban of religion, and improved education. Basically the model for Communism.

 

[Ender]

For the finale fuck's sake, when I say peaceful I mean lower murder rate... Not human rights.

what about violent crime rates? Not many people have adressed it, but violent crime is a much larger problem then murder, by about a 300 fold.

 

[dracemia]

what about violent crime rates? Not many people have adressed it, but violent crime is a much larger problem then murder, by about a 300 fold.

I saw someone stating the fact that human is violent in nature. We became the most prominent species on this planet because we violently asserted our dominions over other animals, that's also a fact. We can't stop crime, we can only regulate certain behaviors because, as said MANY TIMES by various people, if you want to kill someone.. any objects could be used as a deadly weapon.



You know what else could kill people ? Cars and drunk drivers.

Do you know how we deal with them ? We make laws that limit the speed of the car and laws that punish people who drive cars when drunk. We even have laws that limit the accessibility of alcohol to certain age of people and only at certain times you are allowed to buy them, which reduce the chance of intoxicated people causing accidents.

We install lights at night and security-cameras in shops and alleys so that criminals will be deterred from committing rape and robbery. We hope to protect rational-civilized citizens from the very fact that not everyone is rational and peace-loving. However, that doesn't mean these measurement are 100% effective. Not every driver obey the 30 mph limit and not everyone buy alcohol legally. We can't force people to drive at certain limit at all time, we can't completely ban alcohol and we can't setting up surveillance everywhere without a cost of our morality being too high.

So, why do we call for a stricter regulation on guns if other things are still killing people ?

Well, that's because not only the very concept of its design is to harm and take human's life in one of the most practical and effective way up-to-date. We'll also have to deal with individuals smart enough to operate them and have a chance to legally own them. They're resourceful and unpredictable, sometimes reckless and sometimes cunning. Unlike drunk drivers, who's mostly too ignorance to realize that their own safety is also on the line.

The fact that another school shoot-out occur is screaming at the face of people responsible for public safety, telling them whatever measure against gun-owning criminals they had in place is falling. Human is a highly adaptive specie and every aspects of us is so, our society, our history and even individually.... Especially, individually. And that, is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizen indiscriminately and accordingly.


You can argue with your own protection capabilities, your 2nd Amendment or your entertainment all you want but let's not pretend that the government doesn't have the right to regulate behavior and firearms-ownership for the sake of public safety.


Oh, speaking of the 2nd Amendment, this book just came out.

To which I quote

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, gun advocates have to ask themselves if their zeal to protect even the outer limits of gun ownership have anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment as a whole, or if it’s just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage. I have nothing against gun owners, sport shooters, or hunters, but how many have to die before we will give up these dangerous toys? Do the murders have to be in the mall where you shop? In your own neighborhood? In your own family?

EDIT: I just saw RiotZ's post, I didn't read your whole post. That was my bad.
Also, If I'm not mistaken, you were the one bringing up the "human is violent in nature" ?

EDIT2: Where was the conservative outburst when Sarah Palin disarmed Alaska back in '08

 

[Ender]

I saw someone stating the fact that human is violent in nature.

exactly which is why I support gun ownership. because humans are violent nature, the thing is with a gun you can defend yourself, if you can't defend yourself who will? I would again like to point to out that england, and austrlia both have upward trends of violent crime, which started after they made owning guns extremely difficult. ^{look at the statistics I linked in my previous posts.}

any objects could be used as a deadly weapon.

exactly, and you are stupid if you think you can defend yourself against a determined opponent when you are unarmed, to be honest even if you are armed with a knife/bat/whatever you are still probably dead (why? because unless you are as strong and have had training you are no match for a violent criminal. However, with a gun your granny is quite capable of eliminating a similar threat.)

if you want to kill someone..

you are still failing to understand, that killing people isn't that common of a crime, violent crime (ie assault, rape etc..) are a bigger problems and are far more prevalent, again 300 times as common in the USA. If you had bothered to look at the previous statistics, you would see that austraila, has violent crime growing 4 times as fast as the population, and that UK has a similar situation(both of which have low gun ownership and have made owning guns extremely difficult)

You know what else could kill people ? Cars and drunk drivers.

I agree with you, alcohol is one of the worst drugs out there and is a major problem in our society, but I digress.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, gun advocates have to ask themselves if their zeal to protect even the outer limits of gun ownership have anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment as a whole, or if it’s just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage. I have nothing against gun owners, sport shooters, or hunters, but how many have to die before we will give up these dangerous toys? Do the murders have to be in the mall where you shop? In your own neighborhood? In your own family?

isn't it funny how anti-gun advocates depend on pathos, not logos in their arguments? I haven't read the book yet, but a better quote from it would be one that shows that guns increase violence (an argument that if true would depend on logic)

You can argue with your own protection capabilities, your 2nd Amendment or your entertainment all you want but let's not pretend that the government doesn't have the right to regulate behavior and firearms-ownership for the sake of public safety.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759).
I would also like to again mention that if we ban fire arms we will probably end up like england and austrlia.

Also I would like to note that according to the Constitution the Fed Government is granted no rights to manage fire arms. Show me where the Constitution states explicitly that, 'the government is allowed to regulate fire arms" or something to a similar effect. because remember according to the tenth amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" so show me where in the Constitution it allows the Federal government to control fire arms (just to reiterate what the tenth amendment says, unless a power is directly granted to the Fed Gov it doesn't have that authority)

edit:

EDIT2: Where was the conservative outburst when Sarah Palin disarmed Alaska back in '08

first off she did not put in place laws restricting the gun ownership.(check your facts, and I quote "just because you are lazy doesn't mean you shouldn't provide a srs"^{quote from dracmia} secondly when you link an article actually read it, your statement would lead one to believe that she outlawed guns in Alaska, also politicalusa is extremely biased towards dems).

 

[dracemia]

exactly which is why I support gun ownership. because humans are violent nature, the thing is with a gun you can defend yourself, if you can't defend yourself who will?

Of course we're violent creatures, but guns are so readily available and so easy to use, it's so hard not to use them when you have one.

So, that argument is wrapped down into
- Guns don't kill people, people kill people. (which a lot of us tried really hard to avoid, I noticed)

Then, I guess we don't need guns. We just need to protect against people.
As stated by the undead George Washington himself here.

credit: Marvel NOW!: Deadpool #2

I'm sorry but we've been over this argument so many times, guns are weapon designed to kill efficiently, it's easy to use and easy to access.... blah blah blah and so on and so on.


Let's see some other argument made in this thread.


- The 2nd Amendment guaranteed my rights to....

Let me stop you right there. The 1st Amendment also give you free speech but a death threat can still get your ass in jail. Every "rights" is regulated, guns are no exception.

I would again like to point to out that england, and austrlia both have upward trends of violent crime, which started after they made owning guns extremely difficult.

We're not talking about crime or violence in general. We're talking about gun violence, which goes up when you have more, you know, guns. It's a strange logic that is brightly illustrated as

credit already in the picture

, which started after they made owning guns extremely difficult.

- People are getting guns illegally, banning and stricting guns will rob us of our protection

Well, shit. If the criminals will always get guns illegally, WHY DON'T THEY ? You don't hear much about fully-automatic guns being used lately while they were once used by criminals. The government banned them and POOF they practically disappeared as your national problem. Turns out that when they outlaw machine guns, the outlaws didn't have them!

- We need guns to protect our home and properties and our loved ones.

Then I hope you have 22 disposable family members, because statistically, that's how many you'll have to go through before you kill an intruder.(Note: An Arthur Kellerman study showed it's 22 times more likely a family member will be killed by a gun in the home than for the gun to be used to ward off an intruder, Journal of Trauma, 1998)

Also, some other interesting studies of Arthur Kellerman

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

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

- Now, I know when I start talking about legislation, people will start differentiating between guns and assault weapons because they aren't really used in the army and all that.

Well, guess the people killed by guns didn't really die because the weapons they were killed with weren't really assault weapon. Hey, that actually make sense !.... Is it ?


Oh and my favourite argument.
- "It's not fair to punish law-abiding, responsible gun owners because some whack job goes on a shooting spree!"

I guess it's fair to let those children at Sandy hook got butchered because it might inconvenience some people ? How far have we come on the road of morality....

isn't it funny how anti-gun advocates depend on pathos, not logos in their arguments? I haven't read the book yet, but a better quote from it would be one that shows that guns increase violence (an argument that if true would depend on logic)

So, what ? Do we wait around for another shoot-out ? This anti-gun advocate pathos thing you think they're using is strangely outdated since the very first US school shootout.This isn't the use of pathos anymore, this is another wake-up call from the last time we knocked snooze on this topic.

 

[RiotZ]

what about violent crime rates? Not many people have adressed it, but violent crime is a much larger problem then murder, by about a 300 fold.

I agree 100%, it's just dumbasses down-shadow real issues when they see shit on TV, which is what's happening with gun violence right now. It's only a problem if it's on TV.

Of course we're violent creatures, but guns are so readily available and so easy to use, it's so hard not to use them when you have one.

So, that argument is wrapped down into
- Guns don't kill people, people kill people. (which a lot of us tried really hard to avoid, I noticed)

Then, I guess we don't need guns. We just need to protect against people.
As stated by the undead George Washington himself here.

credit: Marvel NOW!: Deadpool #2

I'm sorry but we've been over this argument so many times, guns are weapon designed to kill efficiently, it's easy to use and easy to access.... blah blah blah and so on and so on.


Let's see some other argument made in this thread.


- The 2nd Amendment guaranteed my rights to....

Let me stop you right there. The 1st Amendment also give you free speech but a death threat can still get your ass in jail. Every "rights" is regulated, guns are no exception.




We're not talking about crime or violence in general. We're talking about gun violence, which goes up when you have more, you know, guns. It's a strange logic that is brightly illustrated as

credit already in the picture



- People are getting guns illegally, banning and stricting guns will rob us of our protection

Well, shit. If the criminals will always get guns illegally, WHY DON'T THEY ? You don't hear much about fully-automatic guns being used lately while they were once used by criminals. The government banned them and POOF they practically disappeared as your national problem. Turns out that when they outlaw machine guns, the outlaws didn't have them!

- We need guns to protect our home and properties and our loved ones.

Then I hope you have 22 disposable family members, because statistically, that's how many you'll have to go through before you kill an intruder.(Note: An Arthur Kellerman study showed it's 22 times more likely a family member will be killed by a gun in the home than for the gun to be used to ward off an intruder, Journal of Trauma, 1998)

Also, some other interesting studies of Arthur Kellerman



- Now, I know when I start talking about legislation, people will start differentiating between guns and assault weapons because they aren't really used in the army and all that.

Well, guess the people killed by guns didn't really die because the weapons they were killed with weren't really assault weapon. Hey, that actually make sense !.... Is it ?


Oh and my favourite argument.
- "It's not fair to punish law-abiding, responsible gun owners because some whack job goes on a shooting spree!"

I guess it's fair to let those children at Sandy hook got butchered because it might inconvenience some people ? How far have we come on the road of morality....




So, what ? Do we wait around for another shoot-out ? This anti-gun advocate pathos thing you think they're using is strangely outdated since the very first US school shootout.This isn't the use of pathos anymore, this is another wake-up call from the last time we knocked snooze on this topic.

When I come to your house with my illegally purchased firearm to rob and/or kill you, will you then shower me with you sharply stated points and proper sensibilities? No I expect you will die. If that isn't a frank enough example, I don't know what is.

Also the argument that more of something that is bad is worse, is not true. Guns are deterrents for guns, the more guns there are, the less chance someone uses them. Same deal with nuclear weapons. If China was the only one with nukes, well, you'd be dead, or Chinese.

And yes, I said humans are violent in their nature in a more complicated manner, we are the only animals capable of thinking for ourselves, and making complex, devious decisions outside of permanent moral guidelines or what would be in a normal animal, called instincts.

No one is arguing against you that ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE BAD, but where does it end... It makes no difference what you do, you can't stop it, it is inevitable we will kill each other until we are taught not to. Society has made us what we are, desensitized us to violence by making it commonplace, and not explaining it detailed enough to create a proper fear of it.

There are 3 sides to this argument I believe. I'm not on any of them, because they're all stupid.

1. Take away all guns. (Terrible, terrible idea, only criminals will have weapons.)
2. Ban Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines. (Indifferent idea, makes no difference when you can buy guns illegally or carry multiple legally obtained weapons.)
3. Leave it the way it is. (Indifferent idea, makes no difference gun violence will continue until culture changes.)

There are two things I think everyone should be aware of... After doing some research I learned that, 75+% of all gun violence is committed with illegal/unregistered firearms. The next is that high capacity magazines and assault weapons would be banned by use of police officers... So the people who are supposed to have firepower would no longer have it.

 

[dracemia]

Also the argument that more of something that is bad is worse, is not true. Guns are deterrents for guns, the more guns there are, the less chance someone uses them. Same deal with nuclear weapons. If China was the only one with nukes, well, you'd be dead, or Chinese.

It's actually simple and there's a reason it doesn't work that way. If you barge into someone's house with the intention of robbing them at gun point. It doesn't matter if they have guns themselves or not, you'd shoot them either way the moment they appear to be resisting.

Because people who commit these gun crimes are usually not great-thinkers, they don't think "oh what if he has a gun and shoot back !?" They just shoot you be it you're fighting back, shooting back or running away. You can't really compare them to nukes when .. Hey, maybe we realize the potential of nukes and we're humane enough not to just wholesale slaughter everyone else and take over the world.

But digressing that, I go back to the "There's nothing defensive about shooting a gun. Wearing a bullet-proof vest is defensive, shooting a gun is not." because hey, Can you defensively launch a nuke ? I mean if it's going to be in your house just to help scare off the criminals, should we ban bullets instead ? So, there's never going to be casualty and still keeping the gun and scaring off bad guys, right ?

Of course, you're going to use it. Either that or I could just pretend to have a gun and that would scare them house-invaders too ?

I think I'll get shot either way.


And some of those arguments are not directed at anyone in general, I said "Let's see some other argument that are widely use by Gun-advocates." sort of.


Also, you missed the point of me pointing out that assault weapons were banned. I'm implying that banning guns have worked before, although it was directed at assault weapons mostly. You don't see criminal with up-to-date military-grade weapons now.

 

[Nuclear]

Comparing guns with nuclear weapons is ridiculous. When nuclear weapons are launched, you can get the info of them coming for you early, and you can send yours. Guns on the other hand do their job practically instantly, there's no time for you to shoot yours before their bullet hits you. Balance of terror doesn't work that way.

@dracemia

 

[RiotZ]

Comparing guns with nuclear weapons is ridiculous. When nuclear weapons are launched, you can get the info of them coming for you early, and you can send yours. Guns on the other hand do their job practically instantly, there's no time for you to shoot yours before their bullet hits you. Balance of terror doesn't work that way.

@dracemia

You guys are thick, honestly.

Guns act as a deterrent for other guns, for the same reason as nuclear weapons in every way.

Ex. Person A wants to rob Person X, Person A pursues this idea until realizing that Person X has a firearm (or 6 lol), and decides it would be unwise to rob the house when Person X is home, or to rob the house at all.

The thought of instant death usually propels people away from taking part in it.

You're not going to get into a fight with someone who has a gun, simple because he can kill you, and you don't really want to die.

Now I don't think it's wise for everyone to have guns, that's not what I'm saying, but what I am saying is human nature outweighs any semblance of your broken logic.

It doesn't matter what you think, the honest truth is guns scare people, 90% of people, they have the same effect as those "Beware of Dog" signs. In fact I think their should be signs that state if someone is armed or not in regions where crime is high.

 

[Nuclear]

You guys are thick, honestly.

Guns act as a deterrent for other guns, for the same reason as nuclear weapons in every way.

Ex. Person A wants to rob Person X, Person A pursues this idea until realizing that Person X has a firearm (or 6 lol), and decides it would be unwise to rob the house when Person X is home, or to rob the house at all.

The thought of instant death usually propels people away from taking part in it.

You're not going to get into a fight with someone who has a gun, simple because he can kill you, and you don't really want to die.

Now I don't think it's wise for everyone to have guns, that's not what I'm saying, but what I am saying is human nature outweighs any semblance of your broken logic.

It doesn't matter what you think, the honest truth is guns scare people, 90% of people, they have the same effect as those "Beware of Dog" signs. In fact I think their should be signs that state if someone is armed or not in regions where crime is high.

You're not going to put up a sign that says "I have a gun, so don't even try" on your door, and you're not going to say that to everyone you meet, most people have no way of knowing about the gun.

 

[dracemia]

It doesn't matter what you think, the honest truth is guns scare people, 90% of people, they have the same effect as those "Beware of Dog" signs. In fact I think their should be signs that state if someone is armed or not in regions where crime is high.

That's actually why your logic doesn't work in real life. You don't know if anyone is carrying a gun or not and you may find this hard to believe but if guns are really that a common object people so frequently find others carrying, there would be no gun community because it'd be too common to have a specific community of it.

I'm sorry but the majority of people don't carry guns and people who commit gun-crimes don't plan out their strategy, either you have a gun or not, the first sign of resisting, they'll shoot you anyway. Because, like I said, guns are so easy to use, it's hard not to use them when you are carrying one even if other people might shoot back. That's simple logic.


And your last sentence is exactly why it doesn't work, no one is carrying a gun in the open or hang a sign that say I'm armed with a glock. So, if I want to rob someone with a gun, chances are that they don't own a gun and if they do, I'm just going to shoot mine anyway.


I'm actually repeating that a lot.



But your deterrence scenario might work if you carry the gun like them cowboys in the past, you know out in the open, easy to notice and to reach.

 

[RiotZ]

You guys still miss the point. The only way to stop people from doing something is to instill fear. I wasn't referring to people carrying guns, I was referring to houses. Did you guys miss the "Beware of Dog" example? Those are on houses and fences, not on cardboard signs that people wear. Quit trying to mix and match my words at your convenience.

All I said is that if its common for people to be armed, and you're afraid of being shot, you won't do anything that would prompt someone to shoot you. This is purely hypothetical, and the theory of deterrence.

And why the fuck does there need to be a gun community... I think the words gun and community don't fit in the first place.

 

[Nuclear]

I don't think you can make the comparison between dog sign and gun ownership.

 

[Ender]

You're not going to put up a sign that says "I have a gun, so don't even try" on your door, and you're not going to say that to everyone you meet, most people have no way of knowing about the gun.

also there is another Sign I've seen that says, Patroled by John Deere, Guarded by Winchester.

- The 2nd Amendment guaranteed my rights to....

Let me stop you right there. The 1st Amendment also give you free speech but a death threat can still get your ass in jail. Every "rights" is regulated, guns are no exception.

stop right there, you are punished for using guns in such a way that they take away someone else's unalienable rights, and again the tenth amendment, and again I ask you, where in the Constitution does it say the Fed Government has the right to manage guns? you are avoiding addressing this point, instead you are attempting to compare apples to oranges

I would again like to point to out that england, and austrlia both have upward trends of violent crime, which started after they made owning guns extremely difficult.

We're not talking about crime or violence in general. We're talking about gun violence, which goes up when you have more, you know, guns. It's a strange logic that is brightly illustrated as

You are missing the point guns do not mean more violence, as austrlia and england both show (by the rapid rise in violent crime after guns were practically outlawed)

This isn't the use of pathos anymore,

show me a statistic that proves that outlawing guns reduces violence. give one logical argument, where your main point doesn't depend on emotion.
(the quote below is an excellent example of a pathos based argument)

Then I hope you have 22 disposable family members, because statistically, that's how many you'll have to go through before you kill an intruder.(Note: An Arthur Kellerman study showed it's 22 times more likely a family member will be killed by a gun in the home than for the gun to be used to ward off an intruder, Journal of Trauma, 1998)

Refutation
First we need to understand how the ratio was derived.

Kellermann tabulated gunshot deaths occurring in King County, Washington, from 1978 to 1983. Table 1 below is taken from Kellermann's paper (Table 3 on p. 1559).

Table 1. Classification of 398 Gunshot Deaths involving a Firearm Kept in the Home
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Suicide 333
Unknown 3
Total 389
Self-protection homicide 9
As we see from Table 1, a ratio of 389 violent deaths to 9 justifiable homicides gives us the famous 43 to 1 ratio.

Let's apply the same methodology to non-gun deaths and non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, for King County, Washington.

Table 2. Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not Involving a Firearm
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 0
Criminal homicide1 50
Suicide2 347
Unknown 0
Total 397
Self-protection homicide3 4
This ratio of 397 non-gun violent deaths to 4 justifiable homicides reduces to 99 to 1.

So having applied Kellermann's methodology to non-firearm violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1.

Please note, the purpose of this exercise is not to show that using a gun in the home is better than not using one. This exercise does no such thing. It is merely to show how deeply flawed Kellermann's study really is. Further, a number of tremendously important factors are left unaccounted.

For example, another way of looking at it is, more martial artists are probably murdered by non-gun methods than they kill in self-defense. Would we conclude that it is best to avoid learning a martial art for self-defense based on such a "nonsense ratio?" Regardless of how the number crunching had turned-out between gun and non-gun violent deaths in the home, we should be able to see that Kellermann's approach contributes nothing towards establishing a general or personal risk factor for a gun in the home.

What is truly sad about the nonsense-ratio is how often it is cited and uncritically accepted.

To decide whether or not to own a gun for self-defense based solely on a "kill" ratio is folly. To estimate the risks and benefits of gun ownership many more factors need to be considered. An example is defensive gun use, which outnumbers homicides, suicides, and accidents, and is ignored in most of the medical research. (See How often are guns used in self-defense?)

what the above article says is that kellermans ratio is inherently flawed.

Edit: I would like you to tell me how many successful self defense cases are carried out without a gun every year.
If you want me to address any point, just tell me.

 

[Zakamutt]

I'm way too lazy to find sources for any statement to counter Ender at the moment (He's winning). However I must nitpick on using the constitution as an argument. Really, it's an argument from false authority; the right to bear arms was instituted in a completely different time than the current, and unlikely to be based on much research.

 

[RiotZ]

I don't think you can make the comparison between dog sign and gun ownership.

Are you sure about that?

Would you really rob someone if you knew there was a good chance you would die?

 

[Zakamutt]

Given that I'd pull my gun first, I doubt my victim would dare to do anything. I'm fairly confident in my ability to hit a target at close range.

 

[Ender]

offtopic to Zakamutt

. However I must nitpick on using the constitution as an argument. Really, it's an argument from false authority; the right to bear arms was instituted in a completely different time than the current

how is now a completely different time? Human nature doesn't change. you will always have people who wish to assert unjust dominion over other people.
Do you know what the purpose of the second amendment is? one of the reasons the USA won its revolution, is that everyone had a gun. The reason its the second amendment is because right after the freedom of speech. the right to defend your liberty is really important. The reason they even put it in there despite all of the opposition against it, one of which was Madison, was they did not want the government to infringe upon the rights that they viewed as essential for liberty. (the reason there was an opposition against it is that people, like Madison, were concerned that the government would eventually decide that the only rights people had were the rights expressly stated in the Constitution, hence the tenth amendment.
also how is it false authority? Until the Constitution changes it is law.

and unlikely to be based on much research.

do you know how many years of research went into the writing of the constutition? do you know how many years Madison spent researching past governments? (remember the bill of rights is based off of Virginia's bill of rights, which was written by George Mason with input from Madison

edit:

Given that I'd pull my gun first, I doubt my victim would dare to do anything. I'm fairly confident in my ability to hit a target at close range.

No you wouldn't, instead you would rob someone without a gun. its a whole lot safer.

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery — from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing — produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."

Edit here is an essay that discusses DGU(defensive gun use) The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

 

[RiotZ]

Given that I'd pull my gun first, I doubt my victim would dare to do anything. I'm fairly confident in my ability to hit a target at close range.

Haha no.

Ender summed it up much better than I. Both arguments are sound, but in the end the truth is nothing will happen no matter what we do we are destined for continual violence and failure.

 

[dracemia]

you are avoiding addressing this point, instead you are attempting to compare apples to oranges

Because, like I said, It does sound really stupid if we all pretend that the government doesn't have the the rights to regulate behavior that is deemed a threat to other citizens.

I'm not avoiding it, it is a common thing that there is nothing to discuss about... but since you brought it up, by your logics then I suppose the hate-speech law is also a breach of Constitutional rights because just like guns, they're regulating your freedom of speech.

Now, you see why I don't address this point. Every rights you have come with limit and regulations, I'm still baffled as to why people who own guns feel like one right is above others.


If you want to pull legal terms, you'll have to talk to someone else. I'm sure someone might have brought up the same question you did, the "Where in the constitutional rights does it say the government can regulate our rights ?" and I'm not going to look it up for you because the idea of absolute freedom with no limitation is beyond stupid for a democratic country. It's like ..the fundamental foundations of democracy, you know.

You are missing the point guns do not mean more violence, as austrlia and england both show (by the rapid rise in violent crime after guns were practically outlawed)

I'm not, you are. We're talking about gun crimes and homicide by guns, other crimes are not being addressed here. This is another simple logic. Reducing access to guns obviously mean less guns in crimes, as I've stated in the previous post that not every criminal seek out guns as a weapon but rather it was in their ownership when they commit a crime with it.

show me a statistic that proves that outlawing guns reduces violence. give one logical argument, where your main point doesn't depend on emotion.
(the quote below is an excellent example of a pathos based argument)

I'm not saying that gun is a factor in violent behavior, we've established that human is violent in nature, there's no denying in that. I'm talking about gun-crimes.

I might phrased those arguments emotionally but that doesn't mean the statements themselves are illogical tho.

All I said is that if its common for people to be armed, and you're afraid of being shot, you won't do anything that would prompt someone to shoot you. This is purely hypothetical, and the theory of deterrence.

That could work for crimes that need to be planned ahead, house robbery or store robbery. Still didn't stop people from actually doing it, sadly.

And considering how most gun crimes aren't well-thoughts robbery, this theory won't be as effective when it's applied to street-walkers.

Are you sure about that?

Would you really rob someone if you knew there was a good chance you would die?

I'm saying this for the last time. I don't think desperate people who decided to rob someone would be thinking clearly as to "This guy might have a gun too".

He's going to show up in front (or from behind you) with a gun pointing at you. Whether you have a gun yourself or not is irrelevant to him, the moment you pull out a gun, a knife, putting up a fist or running away, he shoots you. Whatever the outcome, someone is going to get hurt really bad.

So, unless you hang your gun on the belt like them cowboys. There's no way this robber guy could know you have a gun and stop himself from trying to rob you in the first place.


This is for crimes outside households, of course.

------------------------------------------------------------

Here's some fun questions for you think about.

If guns are fully legal, no restriction what-so-ever, would that solve the gun crimes and gun violent ?

 

[Ender]

I'm not, you are. We're talking about gun crimes and homicide by guns, other crimes are not being addressed here. This is another simple logic. Reducing access to guns obviously mean less guns in crimes, as I've stated in the previous post that not every criminal seek out guns as a weapon but rather it was in their ownership when they commit a crime with it.

again, we see that he has no response for the fact that if you remove guns violence goes up, I am not talking about places that never allowed guns in the first place, I am talking about in places that guns were once legal in. so are you willing to triple crime?^{a pathos argument} remember before england and austrlia banned guns they had a lower violent crime rate then the USA, now they have thrice ours.

I'm saying this for the last time. I don't think desperate people who decided to rob someone would be thinking clearly as to "This guy might have a gun too".

He's going to show up in front (or from behind you) with a gun pointing at you. Whether you have a gun yourself or not is irrelevant to him, the moment you pull out a gun, a knife, putting up a fist or running away, he shoots you. Whatever the outcome, someone is going to get hurt really bad.

source

summarizes what our sample defensive gun use(DGU) incidents were like. The data support a number of broad generalizations. First, much like the typical gun crime, many of these cases were relatively undramatic and minor compared to fictional portrayals of gun use. Only 24% of the gun defenders in the present study reported firing the gun, and only 8% report wounding an adversary.[76] This parallels the fact that only 17% of the gun crimes reported in the NCVS involve the offender shooting at the victim, and only 3% involve the victim suffering a gunshot wound.[77]

so what if the attacker gets hit? the attacker has already decided to step outside of the law. Now if the victim get injured, that is a different situation but,

Gun defenders were injured in just 5.5% of all DGU incidents.

so if you use a gun to defend yourself, you have a 5.5% chance of getting hurt
and be aware that in

Further, in 84% of the incidents where the defender was threatened or attacked, it was the offender who first threatened or used force. In none of the eleven sample cases where gun defenders were injured was the defender the first to use or to threaten force. The victim used a gun to threaten or attack the offender only after the offender had already attacked or threatened them and usually after the offender had inflicted the injury. There is no support in this sample for the hypothesis that armed resistance provokes criminals into attacking victims; this confirms the findings of prior research

so deciding to defend yourself with a weapon, does not provoke the attacker (according to their sample set of 217 cases)

if you pull out a gun you have a 4.5% chance of being shot at(this does not mean hit, remember criminals have a 18% chance to hit.)

In only 4.5% of the cases did the offender shoot at the defender.

Dracemia, please read this well written article on DGU, take it with a grain of salt (as the article itself encourages you to)

about the constitution

.

but since you brought it up, by your logics

How my my logic, you see guns don't threaten peoples right to be safe in their homes and person.

then I suppose the hate-speech law is also a breach of Constitutional rights because just like guns, they're regulating your freedom of speech.

First off is free speech banned? no, law doesn't work that way, instead what you do is proscribed punishment for those who would infringe on others rights.

Animals are, People are what they've done. any attack on someones reputation, slander, can be considered an attack on their person, in fact it is usually far more damaging (with out your reputation what are you?). So should we ban speech? Words have killed trillions of people. Single phrases have mutilated thousands . A single cry has caused widespread revolutions. Words have murdered thousands of innocent children, Committed genocide, Infanticide, Caused wars that have consumed the entire world. Speech is the most dangerous weapon. Ridiculous you say, this is so stupid, why would you even think that? well maybe it is stupid and ridiculous. But every war was caused by words. Sometimes a speech, a call to arms. It has caused every genocide, "everyone who is (insert race here) is inferior" "they aren't like us". Every single mass atrocity has been caused by words "go kill every tenth person in such and such village" "go strap a bomb onto yourself and you will go to heaven". So should we ban speech? No, only punish those who misuse their freedom in an attack on someone else's freedom. The constitution allows this ("safe in their person and property"), but, remember we don't ban speech because someone might slander someone, we don't ban speech because someone might start a lynch mob. Instead all we do is tell people that if they misuse their right of free speech, and encroach on someone else's right, they lose some of their freedoms.

 

[Zakamutt]

Ugh, statistics. After looking at stuff, the inter-comparability is just... Man. Anyway, compare fig.4 and fig.5 here. (looks like you might have to copy this one due to its extreme length, seems to have borked the forum).

The homicide rate in the UK is in fact lower than the rate of homicides in the US. (somewhat recent stats; rates appear to have been relatively stable). I must admit it is not significantly lower.

It should be noted that in the UK crime report I found (Table A.01) the rate of crimes in which serious wounds were inflicted is at 0.8%.

For what it's worth, this lists the intentional homicide rate of the US as 4 times that of the UK. It appears well-sourced.
(found something else to support this: UN Intentional Homicide Report)

so deciding to defend yourself with a weapon, does not provoke the attacker (according to their sample set of 217 cases)

Given the low sample size, are you sure this can be trusted?

Part of the problem concerning UK statistics of gun violence is the prevalence of air weapons, of which crimes were not registered in the years before the 1997 firearms acts:

In the year Apr 2010 to Mar 2011 there were 11,227 recorded offences involving firearms, broken down as follows.

By weapon type:

Long-barrelled shotgun = 406
Sawn-off shotgun = 202
Handgun = 3,105
Rifle = 74
Imitation firearm = 1,610
Unidentified firearm = 957
Other firearm = 670
Air weapons = 4,203

Yeah, Wikipedia again. God I'm lazy.

What I've found so far indicates the possibility that strict gun control has no effect on crime rates, up or down. The question then becomes what percentage of crimes result in serious injuries, and if people feel less or more safe in a country with a high prevalence of guns. Personally I would be fucking creeped out if I walked around in a place where everyone had guns, but that's cultural.

Moar contitutional shiz

Human nature may not have changed, but the structure of the places humans live in certainly have. Researching past civilizations seems rather silly, as they will be even further removed from current conditions.

Regarding "argument from false authority", this relates to a potential fallacy where one uses an authority that does not have good knowledge of the subject at hand, not laws. I suppose I should have used "argument from misleading authority", really. Whether you believe a man could predict the future structure of civilization and its effects on crime etc more than a 100 years forward is your prerogative, I guess.

I have more to say on this topic if required, but it's just an aside anyway :f.

 

[HappyTauren]

This thread has boiled down to the "does adding mayonnaise make a sandwich toxic" debate. It could, but it really depends on how the immune system handles it, which means this is highly individual. While the ban of guns might make some riot, it would also probably make many people withdraw guns. While the law that completely permits all kinds of weapons would make some psychopaths cash in, some people would just become more careful, etc.

 

[RiotZ]

Because, like I said, It does sound really stupid if we all pretend that the government doesn't have the the rights to regulate behavior that is deemed a threat to other citizens.

I'm not avoiding it, it is a common thing that there is nothing to discuss about... but since you brought it up, by your logics then I suppose the hate-speech law is also a breach of Constitutional rights because just like guns, they're regulating your freedom of speech.

Now, you see why I don't address this point. Every rights you have come with limit and regulations, I'm still baffled as to why people who own guns feel like one right is above others.


If you want to pull legal terms, you'll have to talk to someone else. I'm sure someone might have brought up the same question you did, the "Where in the constitutional rights does it say the government can regulate our rights ?" and I'm not going to look it up for you because the idea of absolute freedom with no limitation is beyond stupid for a democratic country. It's like ..the fundamental foundations of democracy, you know.



I'm not, you are. We're talking about gun crimes and homicide by guns, other crimes are not being addressed here. This is another simple logic. Reducing access to guns obviously mean less guns in crimes, as I've stated in the previous post that not every criminal seek out guns as a weapon but rather it was in their ownership when they commit a crime with it.



I'm not saying that gun is a factor in violent behavior, we've established that human is violent in nature, there's no denying in that. I'm talking about gun-crimes.

I might phrased those arguments emotionally but that doesn't mean the statements themselves are illogical tho.



That could work for crimes that need to be planned ahead, house robbery or store robbery. Still didn't stop people from actually doing it, sadly.

And considering how most gun crimes aren't well-thoughts robbery, this theory won't be as effective when it's applied to street-walkers.



I'm saying this for the last time. I don't think desperate people who decided to rob someone would be thinking clearly as to "This guy might have a gun too".

He's going to show up in front (or from behind you) with a gun pointing at you. Whether you have a gun yourself or not is irrelevant to him, the moment you pull out a gun, a knife, putting up a fist or running away, he shoots you. Whatever the outcome, someone is going to get hurt really bad.

So, unless you hang your gun on the belt like them cowboys. There's no way this robber guy could know you have a gun and stop himself from trying to rob you in the first place.


This is for crimes outside households, of course.

------------------------------------------------------------

Here's some fun questions for you think about.

If guns are fully legal, no restriction what-so-ever, would that solve the gun crimes and gun violent ?

I really don't think you know anything about gun violence. It is not what you see on TV, mass shootings where people die, it is mostly gang-related, or related to rape, and robbery. The other cases are much rarer than the ladder. And the ladder crime entail intent, intent entails intelligence, and intelligence means you can decide whether or not it's smart to rob someone as dangerous as your self.

These are my last points, since they completely diffuse your entire argument.

80-/+% of all gun violence is with illegal weapons, a statistic I read to no surprise a few days ago.

When you account for gun violence and don't account for other crimes you are one, disposing of your own, self-stated moral high-ground, and two making a completely illogical assumption that gun violence, and crime are unrelated, which is senseless, seeing how most gun violence comes from petty crime and not the shooting rampages you saw on TV that made you get all antsy. There were 500 gang-related shootings in Chicago last year.

 

[Zakamutt]

80-/+% of all gun violence is with illegal weapons, a statistic I read to no surprise a few days ago.

Sauce?

Also, I realize it might take awhile to read my sources - I still haven't really begun on the defensive gun use essay more than a page or so - but I think I have made some valid arguments based on statistics. Take your time, I guess, and feel free to ignore Dracemia.

 

[dracemia]

Okay, I think you two are conflicting with what you were arguing about earlier or you might have mistaken my stands (at least Ender is) So, I'm sorry but you might have diffuse my argument if we're actually talking on the same page.


We've established that human is violent in nature, there's no stopping that. Violent and crimes are always going to happen.

Now, in this thread that talks about Gun Right and Gun Control, I said on numerous occasion that I support a more strict regulation of guns, not a total ban. Nobody is calling for your guns to be taken away, but we're calling for a harder to access gun restriction. I even specifically list the reasons of why we need to deal with gun crimes separately from other crimes

So, I brought up gun crimes and gun violent, which is a part of violent and one of the few actual national problem that occur so often, it has its own category in the list of national problems.


Now, Ender keep on insisting that gun is not a factor in violent, which I'm not replying to because I agree and I moved on to other points like how it's so hard not to use a gun in your hands when it's so easy to use and it's more unlikely to find a gun-owner to rob on the street (or even in households) because guns aren't really that common to find among many areas of the country.

So, can we please get back to gun control and more strict gun regulation now ?

----------------------------------------------------------


Now to actually conflicting my own words, The US is known to have the highest rate of gun-ownership in the world in sheer numbers alone the average of 88 out of 100 people, according to here.


But that's not what it sounds like, the number doesn't represent each states as its own with its own laws and people, an area with a lot of gun-owners can raise that number up. That's how statistics, we all know that.


I'm not denying that the US isn't the country with the most problem with gun violent but comparing that with other 1st world country, such as the UK or Australia (as per Ender's examples)

The US turn out to be the only 1st world country with exceedingly high rate of gun violent and gun homicide with other comparatively advance nations, like the UK, Australia, Europian nations, India. 60 percent of homicide in the US occur with firearms while other gun-permeated like Finland (with the rate of gun-ownership at 45.3 out of 100 people) have only 19 percent of homicide involving firearms.


Maybe, that's why they announced gun-violent as a national problem. You guys are not the worst out there, Italy or African countries have it worse.

...but the US shouldn't have been up there among 2nd world country in this aspect.

-------------------

Also, I found that this statistic map will illustrate these points.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map


and then there's this site I found that have strangely suspicion statistics. (because they don't directly link their source)
--------------------------------


I'm sorry I didn't finish that essay you linked me, Ender. I was reading it when I saw the term "Defensive Gun Use" and I stopped reading it, that it was obvious that the author will try to mask the true nature of firearms in that essay.

As I've stated so many time, there's nothing defensive about firing a gun. That's called fighting back. I'm not belaying the author's point (mostly because I did not finish it) but I'm sure it'll turn out to be convincing because it's obviously bias with information.


You know how to use gun defensively ? Hold it side-way and deflect a bullet with it. That's the defensive use of a gun. Holding it and pointing it at someone is threatening. Firing it, is called attacking. (Fighting back)
--------------------------------------------------

I really don't think you know anything about gun violence. It is not what you see on TV, mass shootings where people die, it is mostly gang-related, or related to rape, and robbery.

You want my personal experience ? Here's what I told Jazztastic about my personal experience

Lastly, this is on a personal level where you said I painted myself a foreigner and should not have a place in this discussion.

I've lived in the US for 4 years, during which I've been involved in a shooting twice, once I was shot at. One of them I had no idea what was going on, another was a robbery. It was at a grocery store where I was deliberately shot at along with other shoppers by a robber with a magnum of some kind. I had to do the sensible thing and hide. The owner and the cashier was shot. The owner might have lived from his shoulder wound but the cashier bled out from her wound around the neck and died while waiting for an ambulance. She must have been a few years older than me.

Another incident was when a couple of man on a motorcycle drove by and shoot a guy right there on the road midday, I was walking with friends around 4 meters behind the victim. He died on the spot, being shot less that a foot away on the head.


As for the view from the outside, I was very young, barely able to walk around when this happened. I lost a family member during one of the militia vs. soldier session. Then, a few years ago this and this happened, where I was in the vicinity of the both events. (the pain of living close to a governmental HQ) Even if it wasn't shown in the Wiki page, it was gruesome.

I've never been to a shooting range or any hunting but what happened to me made me realize the true potential of guns, so much that it render your "sport" and "entertainment" very trivial. So many people died because someone had a battalion of gun-carrying troops instead of riot-police with batons or combat-knives even. I will not discuss what, how or why those events happened, it will derail the topic.


So, I think I have quite enough ideas of what I'm talking about whether you believe me or not.

 

[RiotZ]

Sauce?

Also, I realize it might take awhile to read my sources - I still haven't really begun on the defensive gun use essay more than a page or so - but I think I have made some valid arguments based on statistics. Take your time, I guess, and feel free to ignore Dracemia.

There are no 100% solid statistics.

But according to this blog, and police sources (which are scattered) it is over 90% of gun violence, and over 95% of homicides.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=30635

"The overwhelming majority of gun related crimes are committed with guns that have been stolen, and traded for drugs. Those guns are passed from criminal to criminal, sold and resold, and may very well be used in hundreds of crimes before they are recovered from someone accused of a crime."

The legal purchaser is almost never the one who commits the crime, and based on how the gun trade works.

 

[Ender]

I'm sorry I didn't finish that essay you linked me, Ender. I was reading it when I saw the term "Defensive Gun Use" and I stopped reading it, that it was obvious that the author will try to mask the true nature of firearms in that essay.

you are really prejudiced you know that?^{and here I though liberals were supposed to be "open minded"}. here is where that article is from "Reprinted by special permission of Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995." The article is addressing cases where people who were getting assaulted/burglarized, used a gun to defend their person/property against said criminal.

so deciding to defend yourself with a weapon, does not provoke the attacker (according to their sample set of 217 cases)

Given the low sample size, are you sure this can be trusted?

first off I am going to assume you have a familiarity with how statistical error works. lets look at their population size, which if you believe what there number says is 2.1 million (defensive gun uses per year).
with a sample size of 2,000(for a population of 200+ million) you have about a ±2% sampling error. Lets suppose that they have a ±5% sampling error(which would exist if your population was 200 million instead of a 100 times smaller), you are still significantly safer, 10.5% chance of getting hurt vs a 25% chance, (mind you it could also just as easily be a .5% chance as a 10.5% chance, if you have a 5% error) Realistically though, their error is going to be between 1.6% and 2%

The homicide rate in the UK is in fact lower than the rate of crime in the US

you don't say, I would hazard a wild guess that the homicide rate in the USA is in fact lower then the rate of crime in the UK. ^{sorry for my sarcasm here} I think that you think that Crime == homicide, Homicide is a subset of violent crime which is a subset of Crime. If you look at the violent crime rate in the UK you will find it is 3 times the US's, to give you a perspective that's 400 more assaults etc.. per capita. How does one decide whether 400 more people getting traumatized for life, is better then 2 more people getting killed? (per capita)

no effect on crime rates up or down

but what you listed isn't crime rates, its amount of gun crimes committed. Crime rates would be such and such offenses commited per capita. And if one looks at that then the UK's crime rate, which on the whole is significantly higher .http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime here are two number taken from that survey on crime committed per year 6,523,706 Uk, 11,877,218 US, now if one remembers that the UK has a population 1/5 the size of the USA then one ends up with these numbers 32,618,530 UK, 11,877,218 US. interesting to think about, it might makes one wonder doesn't it? (though it could not be quite as Significant as I make it sound, as it says under the figures, they are a better example of the populations willingness to report crimes. Still 32 mill vs 11 mill.

Edit: I liked your first linked article, though you are right it is a rather long read,. Look at figure 6, it shows some interesting trends, also figure 3.

 

[RiotZ]

you are really prejudiced you know that?^{and here I though liberals were supposed to be "open minded"}. here is where that article is from "Reprinted by special permission of Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995." The article is addressing cases where people who were getting assaulted/burglarized, used a gun to defend their person/property against said criminal.


first off I am going to assume you have a familiarity with how statistical error works. lets look at their population size, which if you believe what there number says is 2.1 million (defensive gun uses per year).
with a sample size of 2,000(for a population of 200+ million) you have about a ±2% sampling error. Lets suppose that they have a ±5% sampling error(which would exist if your population was 200 million instead of a 100 times smaller), you are still significantly safer, 10.5% chance of getting hurt vs a 25% chance, (mind you it could also just as easily be a .5% chance as a 10.5% chance, if you have a 5% error) Realistically though, their error is going to be between 1.6% and 2%

you don't say, I would hazard a wild guess that the homicide rate in the USA is in fact lower then the rate of crime in the UK. ^{sorry for my sarcasm here} I think that you think that Crime == homicide, Homicide is a subset of violent crime which is a subset of Crime. If you look at the violent crime rate in the UK you will find it is 3 times the US's, to give you a perspective that's 400 more assaults etc.. per capita. How does one decide whether 400 more people getting traumatized for life, is better then 2 more people getting killed? (per capita)




but what you listed isn't crime rates, its amount of gun crimes committed. Crime rates would be such and such offenses commited per capita. And if one looks at that then the UK's crime rate, which on the whole is significantly higher .http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime here are two number taken from that survey on crime committed per year 6,523,706 Uk, 11,877,218 US, now if one remembers that the UK has a population 1/5 the size of the USA then one ends up with these numbers 32,618,530 UK, 11,877,218 US. interesting to think about, it might makes one wonder doesn't it? (though it could not be quite as Significant as I make it sound, as it says under the figures, they are a better example of the populations willingness to report crimes. Still 32 mill vs 11 mill.

Edit: I liked your first linked article, though you are right it is a rather long read,. Look at figure 6, it shows some interesting trends, also figure 3.

Interesting point seeing as how the UK has a population of 60 million, versus the US' 310 million. Not taking into account the size of the populations skews the numbers.

The larger the population the more destitute people there will be, and the more people therefore prone to violent behavior, that factored with the % increase in size of all statistics. Makes the UK seem like Uganda compared to the US.

 

[dracemia]

The article is addressing cases where people who were getting assaulted/burglarized, used a gun to defend their person/property against said criminal.

I actually went and read it after my last post out of my "deep down sense of neutrality", the author do have a strong logical persuasion.. even if I've never say anything against people whose guns save their lives. (I think it was in my early post with Jazztastic) So, I'm not sure why you linked that essay to me still ?


Now, before I proceed to counter-argue. Are we still talking about gun crimes and gun violent ? because if you guys want to pull in how gun is just a factor to overall violent rate of a country... then, I have nothing more to say than "Violent is in our nature, it's going to happen with or without guns."

I'm here to say gun isn't a tool, it's a weapon and I support a more strict regulation of it. I have nothing on crimes and violent as a whole concept. I've got nothing on that. but if we want to reduce gun violent and gun crimes, harder access to guns is obviously going to help.

I'm not even kidding, I have nothing. The crime and violent as a whole are all cultural philosophy and not something I'd rather talk about.

----------------------------------------

Quick question tho, if you are a responsible gun-owner who already own a gun... why are you opposing the idea of more strict regulations ? You're obviously not a criminal and I've said it on almost every posts here that no one is calling for a total ban of guns here.

 

[Zakamutt]

You don't say, I would hazard a wild guess that the homicide rate in the USA is in fact lower then the rate of crime in the UK.

Ouch, no shit. Actually, I was mislabeling the UK stats; both list Intentional Homicide. Intentional Homicide is afaik any intentional killing, not just gun-related ones.

Do you think you can get any data on what % of violent^{differences in what counts as such nonwithstanding} crime in the US results in serious injuries? I'm fairly interested in this as 0.8% in the UK feels rather low to me.

@dracemia seems like you have a personal phobia/dislike for guns that is not necessarily statistically quantifiable. However, if you were able to get rates of general fear/anxiety of getting shot and so on, that might support your point.

 

[Ender]

Do you think you can get any data on what % of violent^{differences in what counts as such nonwithstanding} crime in the US results in serious injuries

according to the earlier article I read, in confrontations between victim and offender you have a 30% chance of getting injured, but I don't know, what precentage of those are serious injuries. I will look into it.

@dracemia seems like you have a personal phobia/dislike for guns that is not necessarily statistically quantifiable. However, if you were able to get rates of general fear/anxiety of getting shot and so on, that might support your point.

Well its gone up a lot with all of the news attention on it. I would suggest he goes to Gallup or Pews if he is interested in getting data on it.

 

[dracemia]

@dracemia seems like you have a personal phobia/dislike for guns that is not necessarily statistically quantifiable. However, if you were able to get rates of general fear/anxiety of getting shot and so on, that might support your point.

Nah, that's not really a point I would make. It's still personal preferences no matter how many people have this anxiety/phobia of getting shot. It doesn't effect the country as a whole and should be talked about as supportive statement in this case.

I'm just focusing on the original topic of "Would better gun control reduce gun crimes?", I'm not arguing other topic. (Except that time with "Gun as a weapon", that really ticked me off.)

according to the earlier article I read, in confrontations between victim and offender you have a 30% chance of getting injured, but I don't know, what precentage of those are serious injuries. I will look into it.

I saw that in my research, out of 10 people who got shot, 7 survive with minor injuries, 1 with serious injuries and 2 die.

 

[RiotZ]

Nah, that's not really a point I would make. It's still personal preferences no matter how many people have this anxiety/phobia of getting shot. It doesn't effect the country as a whole and should be talked about as supportive statement in this case.

I'm just focusing on the original topic of "Would better gun control reduce gun crimes?", I'm not arguing other topic. (Except that time with "Gun as a weapon", that really ticked me off.)



I saw that in my research, out of 10 people who got shot, 7 survive with minor injuries, 1 with serious injuries and 2 die.

What number of those 7 were incapacitated.

 

[dracemia]

What number of those 7 were incapacitated.

I'm not sure, it didn't say. I was looking up research on surviving chances of being shot.

 

[RiotZ]

Minor injuries sounds almost like being grazed, or in a situation where the bullet flies all the way through without hitting anything... Then again a minor injury could be like getting shot in the foot, which would incapacitate you, and prevent you from doing any harm to anyone.

 

[Nuclear]

Relevant Onion;

 

[dracemia]

Dear lord, NRA is the worst possible group of pro-gun advocate. People like them must be why someone would own a gun and not miss the chance to put a few bullets in their eye sockets.

 

[RiotZ]

Dear lord, NRA is the worst possible group of pro-gun advocate. People like them must be why someone would own a gun and not miss the chance to put a few bullets in their eye sockets.

Comments like that relate to violence, and are socially derogatory.

 

[dracemia]

Comments like that relate to violence, and are socially derogatory.

So is the people who own guns because "God gave it to us and we should use them whenever someone deserve to die"

I'm not paraphrasing.

They're also against background check and when asked about gun-regulations, had their spoke persons (on 3 separated occasion) explicitly stated "Freeways don't even need lanes because criminals aren't going to stay in them anyway."

...still not a paraphrased statement.


Chris W. Cox is like a Westboro Baptist Church preacher if they worship guns.

--------------

I was actually glad nobody (seriously) bring them into the discussion. Call me violent all you want, I'm just a human ..better yet, I don't go on a killing-spree in accordance to being distraught.

 

[gorillabull]

everyone should own a gun that way if some one tries to shoot ya you can shoot them first

 

[RED BARON]

I can't help but wonder, why isn't there as much gun-related crimes in Europian countries as the US ?

Simple its a matter of opportunity and motive. Given the strict laws for guns the opportunity is missing hence doesn't occur. Hence why arguments as to violent games and such is pointless, given that those are also in Eu countries.

As for gun control my own firm opinion is that it should be put in place in USA, while I agree with the constitutional right to own a gun, I don't agree with lack of control nor with availability of guns of military grade.

It is alright to own a gun, heck even two. But there is little sense in owning 20 different guns, including assault rifles with the stated purpose of "self protection". One isn't able to use that many guns, nor is there a need for it.
Also a simple manner of implementing a register (not to prevent sale), but to keep tabs on guns makes perfect sense given the gun violence in USA. Also making sure drunks and people with a mental condition can't go in a buy a gun is also meaningful.
Drunks because the irrationality inherent with that condition, hence preventing sale until the person is sober makes perfect sense. Sure nothing prevents him getting drunk after buying the gun - but its still an improvement.

Mental condition for obvious reasons that they can act beyond reason and as such is a danger.
Both of them which is in line with the idea that convicted criminals shouldn't be able to buy guns either - Which is also fitting with a register of guns to prevent that from happening.

I don't agree with removing every gun or preventing future purchases, but thats not whats being discussed nor should it given the gun environment in USA, but still making logical and meaningful control with guns is no different the control of drugs, even when legal in certain states like marijuana.
Control does not equal a stop of guns (Like the NRA seems to "believe"), instead it should equal measures to limit gun violence, as a good deal of those crimes could if not prevented, at least have been blunted by accepting that an uncontrolled market of guns isn't what was intended with the constitution nor should it be what people want.

Funny thing is that when considering how little control and rights American citizens have under some areas of the law (Law suit contracts, strip search, terror laws and so on), it is ironic how little control they want over the guns.

In the good old saying: Violence equals Violence

 

[Nuclear]

If someone owns 20 guns, I think that person is less dangerous than the one that owns only one. Because then he or she is probably a collector and knows the safety stuff and how to be responsible.

 

[RiotZ]

And I'm not sure if I 100% agree with the above statement, since the person with 20 guns is likely going to have rare and exotic weapons, probably "assault" weapons, which means they're more likely to be stolen from than a little old lady with a .44 magnum.

I believe the crime rate is a higher percentage based on the population in the UK. And crime would be directly affected by gun control.

No guns, people less afraid of police, more willing to commit criminal acts.

Ender has already been over this, you can't use the UK as a comparative to the US, because the UK is just as big a criminal shit-hole.

 

[EloTheMan]

everyone should own a gun that way if some one tries to shoot ya you can shoot them first

Chris Kyle got shot at a shooting range, probably with a handgun in a holster a and a rifle in his hand. He was the deadliest sniper in US military history with many years of training and experience and it didn't help him.

 

[RED BARON]

No guns, people less afraid of police, more willing to commit criminal acts.

While I agree with your first sentiment, I disagree with the quoted - As it has pretty much been proven that when police upgrade their arsenal, the criminals does the same - And they are more likely to shoot first, as the police is doing the same.

As said violence bequest violence.

As for UK I believe you would find that they have far less gun related crimes than USA (Also in percentage related to amount of citizens). Of course other problems also have an influence, but the too easy access to guns gives the opportunity as mentioned, and as such only serves to increase the problem.

Still, control is not the same as total ban on weapons. Which is why the headline for this topic is somewhat wrong, as Gun rights and gun control is not opposites, but instead should be joined in a logical marriage born both out of sense and responsibility, but also culture. Hence access to weapons yes, access to all types of weapons no, access to people with an increased chance of coming a crime with them, no (or at least not without a thorough checkup) and finally keep check on them, so solving crimes becomes a much easier job (Why even be against it? Or as the NRA did, prevent that? It isn't a prevention of weapons nor any limits of rights, its just a tool to help the police when a crime has been committed).

 

[dracemia]

Still, control is not the same as total ban on weapons. Which is why the headline for this topic is somewhat wrong, as Gun rights and gun control is not opposites, but instead should be joined in a logical marriage born both out of sense and responsibility, but also culture. Hence access to weapons yes, access to all types of weapons no, access to people with an increased chance of coming a crime with them, no (or at least not without a thorough checkup) and finally keep check on them, so solving crimes becomes a much easier job (Why even be against it? Or as the NRA did, prevent that? It isn't a prevention of weapons nor any limits of rights, its just a tool to help the police when a crime has been committed).

That's exactly what I've been saying. We're talking about gun violent and it's going to decrease in rate when people have less access to guns with more strict regulations.

-----------------------------

Also, after a few research session, I think it's fair to ask if we can all talk about crime rate and gun-related crime separately because gun-related crimes and gun violent are more likely to result in death, considering its properties and potential.

And we all know that we don't recover from death, from being a victim in crimes, we might.


Now, RiotZ says that UK is a crime-pit kind of country, it really is. There's no denying the numbers and statistics of the crime rate (provided by Ender)

However, the number of murder rate in the UK is ..well, exceedingly low in direct opposite to the rate of crime and violent. In comparison, the rate of murder in both England and Wales combined is lesser than the rate of murder in certain states.

which is to illustrated by this map courtesy of the city-data.com's anon member.

from this FBI annual crime report

Now, according to the UK governmental report on homicides here

That put England and Wales around 1.4 murder rate per 100,000 people and Scotland around 2.4.

---------------------------------

I think it's safe to say that it'd have been ok if Colorado or Michigan or Texas is a country of its own, this number would have been understandable... but it's not. That's a state out of an entire country.

and before anyone point out that it's a murder rate not a gun-murder rate, I found this map which illustrated how each states of the US compared to countries with top gun-homicide rate.

Now you see why gun-violent is a national problem and should be dealt with separately from dealing with crime rate in general.

------------------------------------------

I'm not sure where I'm going with this statement but I think the number of gun ownership attribute directly to the rate of overall intentional homicides. I also found this graph by georgeoughttohelp.com

I just thought that it could make a good point.
We can go back to crime, if it's too conflicting in a post.