Gun Control

[DeletedUser34315]

Victor. The justfacts article says 67 % of murders are committed by firearms. It does not say that there is a 70 percent increase in murders!
We don't need a well armed population? Go read infiniti's posts. He presents the case for an armed populace quite well.
As to "mines bigger than yours bravado", you, again, seem to be forgetting target shooting, and hunting...
We are bordered by Mexico. Illegal guns are very, very easy to get, and making more guns unobtainable legally, will not significantly increase the price of illegal guns.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Victor. The justfacts article says 67 % of murders are committed by firearms. It does not say that there is a 70 percent increase in murders!
We don't need a well armed population? Go read infiniti's posts. He presents the case for an armed populace quite well.
As to "mines bigger than yours bravado", you, again, seem to be forgetting target shooting, and hunting...
We are bordered by Mexico. Illegal guns are very, very easy to get, and making more guns unobtainable legally, will not significantly increase the price of illegal guns.

if you note i said that with near 70% murders by firearms that would come down a lot with a restriction, ergo certainly a lot less murders .. its easier to kill with a gun thats obvious, not so easy with a blade or bare hands. Sure ive read infinities posts but someone has to argue the other side no ? or its not a debate.

The US is huge and Mexico borders one part only. Its like comparing France to the border of Russia in Europe , maybe if you had tighter state border controls youd be more likely to pick up more illegal firearm shipments the same as they have in Europe. Effective policing at borders etc helps and you cannot say it wouldnt raise the price substantially because its never been tried. Its not that you cant get stuff into the UK by smuggling rather there isnt a demand for firearms and the street price is substantially higher here and risk far greater because if your just caught with a firearm its a prison sentence of not a small size. Zero tolerance I believe its called and i can say it seems to be working pretty well.

It is possible for the US to learn from others occasionally you know, it just takes the will to turn the initial corner and take the first but hardest steps.

 

[DeletedUser]

You're living in a bubble. Like others said before, each country is different and the same law will not have the same effect in each and every country equally. USA's history is also very different than any country in the world. It is not paranoia, is a way of thinking developed over the centuries. Before living here I did not see it the way I do now.
And yes, the border situation is at its worst. Otherwise, all the trafficking would not be possible at the level that it is now. But it is and a ban on guns will not affect it in any good way.
Ok so lets say there will be a ban on gun ownership enforced. Every person owning a gun legally will have to return them. What this will do is to lift the guns from the hands of those who own them legally and will not remove the guns from the hands owning them illegally. And there goes the "if caught" part. Well, that already exist. If caught with a gun owned illegally, one will face charges. They face the same fate whether there's a ban on guns or not. What would happen is: disarm honest owners, increase the petty crime rate and increase the trafficking, due to higher demand.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Here we go with the US is unique bit again, poppycock thats just an excuse.Maybe its the US thats living in a "bubble" as you put it, its not the only country in N america to be colonised.

The rate of crime involving firearms is much lower in Canada than in the United States.
There are more than 30 times more firearms in the United States than in Canada. There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.
A much higherproportion of homicides in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada.
Firearm homicide rates are 8.1 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
Handgun homicide rates are 15.3 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
Rates fornon-firearm homicides are nearly 2 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

Between 1987 and 1996, firearm homicide rates increased in the United States but decreased in Canada. During this period, the overall homicide rates decreased in both the U.S. and Canada-11% and 13% respectively. The U.S. firearm homicide rates increased 2%, compared to a 7% decrease in Canada.
A greater proportion of robberies in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 38% of robberies in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 25% in Canada. Furthermore, the proportion of robberies involving firearms shows an increasing trend in the U.S. (from 33% in 1987 to 41% in 1996), compared to a decreasing trend in Canada (from 26% in 1987 to 21% in 1996).
Firearm robbery rates are 3.5 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm robbery rate was 91 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 26 per 100,000 in Canada.
Rates for all robberies are 2.4 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average robbery rate was 238 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 101 per 100,000 in Canada.
Firearms Research Unit
Canada Firearms Centre
June 1998

Try getting the border control sorted. Canada seems to have a far more effective one yet just as hard to police. It seems there is a lot involving education about the need or the use of firearms too, is it any wonder with the amount of people begging to carry them the figures are so much worse there ?

Further more you have no idea what gun laws may or may not achieve as its never been attempted... to say this or that will happen is pure speculation on your part, the unwillingness to try and fix the problem or making excuses just says to me its the US that needs to grow up and stop living in its bubble not me.

 

[DeletedUser]

Of course gun control is a good idea. The issue is, how much gun control?

If we are to use UK as an example, then complete denial of gun ownership seems to have some positive results as far as reducing gun use in the commission of crimes. But, if we are to use Mexico as an example, complete denial of gun ownership has demonstrated itself to leave the populace completely disarmed and unable to defend against gun-wielding criminals.

Why such a difference? The UK is essentially an island, with limited borders and strict entry into the country through travel ports and causeway. Managing gun entry is easier than, say, Mexico with its large land borders. Mexico also struggles with national identity in much the same way as the United States.

Examining such, the U.S. has a lot of similarities to that of Mexico (worse, we have zombies!).

There, examined the extremes of removing guns altogether. Now, when we examine no gun control, we come into the obvious, which is that of arming convicted violent offenders and patients with serious mental health issues (DS, DO). As it stands, the Supreme Court has ruled the U.S. Constitution allows citizens to possess guns for self-protection. So the extreme of "no guns" is simply not an option. So then, we're stuck with something in the middle, something that dominates all gun control debates but is uniformly argued from dichotomic stances, when in actually both stances are demonstratively problematic, particularly for the United States.

I don't wanna repeat the obvious again. HS put it very nicely. Reread, consider it my opinion too and answer to all your bubble talk

 

[DeletedUser16008]

I don't wanna repeat the obvious again. HS put it very nicely. Reread, consider it my opinion too and answer to all your bubble talk

I didnt say it would be easy nor quick, however until you do something it will only get worse, to leave it in limbo is the worst thing possible. If there is no headway made there is no change in mindset, if theres no will to change there will be only an increase in gun crime. The US is only going to find the problem increasing as the population gets poorer and the sun sets on the leading economic power, as it is doing already. You really want nothing to be done about it ? :unsure:

I lived in the most Gun violence % homicides with firearms country in the world for nearly a decade so don't think Ive lived here in the UK all my life and know nothing about guns or guncrime, its just where I chose to bring up my family for a very good reason

 

[DeletedUser]

I didn't claim I don't want anything to change. Of course things need to change and I strongly believe a psychological test should be required, as it should be required in order to operate vehicles, like it is in my home country. But a gun ban here is simply not the answer, it would only create other bigger issues. And politically, it would raise such a controversy (to be mild), since it is a right protected by the second amendment.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

I didn't claim I don't want anything to change. Of course things need to change and I strongly believe a psychological test should be required, as it should be required in order to operate vehicles, like it is in my home country. But a gun ban here is simply not the answer, it would only create other bigger issues. And politically, it would raise such a controversy (to be mild), since it is a right protected by the second amendment.

It needs to be addressed and a start made somehow, they have changed most of the amendments the second can be updated just the same. Progress means change, im not advocating a total immediate ban but rather done in steps over a few generations.

Its a big mess and no one seems to be able to kickstart it, sure it wont be popular but radical change never is, people don't like it. Then again I wouldnt like to have to carry a firearm again just for personal protection either, once rid of that concern its surprising how liberating it is and relaxing life becomes when you don't have that worry in the back of your mind all the time.

 

[DeletedUser16628]

Hey guys been busy as hell and I love this discussion and where it's heading.I have a lot to say but can't really get into it now just got home almost 9pm long day.Vic I was reading some past posts and I was referenced and I do understand and agree with much of what you were saying.I do have some come backs and I'll get into that later tonight if I can stay awake.Sorry I fell off the map on a very good discussion well have at it folks back later.

 

[DeletedUser33353]

True, a decent discussion. As a lifetime NRA member, Southern boy, hunter, and a CCW holder I have not been participating much, as I am extremely biased. But I do love to see what other peeps have to say over the issue. Some things make me think, and some just make me shake my head. That is what a good discussion should do, make one think.

 

[DeletedUser]

I tried to think once, made my head hurt. So, to make the pain go away, I started shooting random objects. Emptying my gun made me feel so much better. Why think when you could reload, right?

If it wasn't for the diligent and noble efforts of the NRA, we would have less guns in the hands of criminals. Now that would be a shame.

 

[DeletedUser33353]

And that is why I do not take the bait Hell....lol.

 

[DeletedUser34315]

Also not taking the bait... you've crossed the line from a debate to insults.

 

[DeletedUser15641]

My personal opinion would be that you should be allowed to have a gun but not that much as in Kuwait there is lots of guns here and the police have went to seize over some in the known gun places and there is lots of people who violate the law in those places so that's suits it so if gun control is used as the above than its not a problem.Not everyone tries to violate the law as some people has illegal guns to hunt some pigeons or birds nothing else except if they had to protect themselves.

 

[DeletedUser]

Here's the logical disconnect:

1. I am safer if I am armed.
2. Therefore, we are all safer if we are all armed.

Point 2 does not follow from point 1, as my next example shows.

1. I will travel more quickly if I drive.
2.Therefore we will all travel more quickly if we all drive.

Because if everyone drives then gridlock can occur and travel times increase.
No amount of anecdote or examples of individual instances can affect the aggregate argument, any more than the temperature on one day can tell us anything about global warming. Only large-scale aggregates can serve a large-scale assertion. That means data, statistics, meta-analyses.
We live our lives as a series of little incidents but to think that we can extrapolate these into an overarching argument is hubris and folly. And a lot of hot air.
Hard empirical evidence please, or leave the room, and stack your chairs as you go.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hard evidence.

To carry a gun safely and legally, you must keep it in a holster, strapped down, with the safety on, no bullet in the chamber (automatic). One common argument is that it serves for self-defense, but the overwhelming cases of violence or assault occur without warning or provocation and without the luxury of time to respond. There is simply very few cases in which you would have time to expose your pistol, unstrap the trigger, pull it from the holster, aim, put the safety to off, and then fire.

Also, the vast majority of assault cases occur in the home or household and is committed by a relative or acquaintance and the amount of cases showing legal application of a firearm (for home defense or similar), not inclusive of law enforcement, is grossly surpassed by the amount of cases showing illegal application (not withstanding illegal possession) of a firearm.

So, where's the rebuttal...

 

[DeletedUser34315]

Here's the logical disconnect:

1. I am safer if I am armed.
2. Therefore, we are all safer if we are all armed.

Point 2 does not follow from point 1, as my next example shows.

1. I will travel more quickly if I drive.
2.Therefore we will all travel more quickly if we all drive.

Because if everyone drives then gridlock can occur and travel times increase.
No amount of anecdote or examples of individual instances can affect the aggregate argument, any more than the temperature on one day can tell us anything about global warming. Only large-scale aggregates can serve a large-scale assertion. That means data, statistics, meta-analyses.
We live our lives as a series of little incidents but to think that we can extrapolate these into an overarching argument is hubris and folly. And a lot of hot air.
Hard empirical evidence please, or leave the room, and stack your chairs as you go.

No one says we are safer if we are ALL armed. There's a reason and a need for restrictions on convicted felons etc.
(justfacts.com)
* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

162K reasons to be armed right there....



* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law.[37]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]


40 % of criminals are far more likely to leave me and my family alone because i have a gun? I'm a fan!



Britain

* In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.[38]

* In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.[39]

* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.[40]


‡ Large anomalies unrelated to guns:
2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping container en route to the UK
2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was exposed for killing his patients
2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter charges
2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London subway/bus bombings
[41]

* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]



We can statistic this to death... i think, put simply, neither of us' viewpoints are going to change, short of something drastic happening to us.

 

[DeletedUser]

No one says we are safer if we are ALL armed. There's a reason and a need for restrictions on convicted felons etc.
(justfacts.com)
* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

Thanks for bringing some numbers to the table to rationally consider.
So, 436,000 serious crimes committed by an armed offender in one year? And you're against gun control? Okay, just clarifying.

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

162K reasons to be armed right there....

Wait a minute - "at least 0.5%" of 4,997 households? That's around 25. How were the households selected, because that's not a very big base? And what's being measured? An OPINION? How do you measure thinking "almost certainly" and wouldn't the 'data' you got depend on how you phrased or led up to the question?
And even I can figure that 162,000 is 0.5% of around 32 million. A country of 260 million only has 32 million households. Come on? Did you even think about these figures before posting them?

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

What I find surprising is that although 40% of felons had been "scared off..." etc, almost a third of them did not know personally anyone else who had been, even though they were incarcerated full-time with hundreds of other felons. Do they never talk to one another?

40 % of criminals are far more likely to leave me and my family alone because i have a gun? I'm a fan!

Well, maybe. But the other 60% may have no option but to kill you also.

* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]

And yet:

• Murder, manslaughter and infanticide rates in England and Wales have fallen to the lowest level for almost three decades, new figures show. Some 550 homicides were recorded in 2011/12, a reduction of 14% year-on-year and the lowest since 1983. In 2001/2002 there were 1,045 recorded homicides.

Of course, both statements could be true, but they paint a rather different picture, don't you think?

We can statistic this to death... i think, put simply, neither of us' viewpoints are going to change, short of something drastic happening to us.

My viewpoint is that many people have irrational positions on this subject and you effectively saying, "the statistics (ie facts) be damned, my mind is made up" does not alter that one whit.
You are assuming my view is as entrenched as yours, but I like to follow the facts, dear boy, the facts.

 

[DeletedUser34315]

Point proven. You skip over any statistics that don't agree with your view point(the rest of the article), as you are convinced your view is right. As I said, we can both find statistics for and against our viewpoints. You've proven my point far better than i could have myself.

436k violent crimes a year... and i live in bear country....and I'm responsible for several hundred head of cattle... why on earth WOULDN'T i want to have a gun?
If i have a gun, i can scare off animals, or attackers, or capture them, or kill them. If i don't have a gun, i can say "Well, ##%! And be a passive victim, and hope i survive, then drive(assuming they didn't steal the car if it's a human) 10 miles to get cell service to call 911 which will show up too late to do a damned bit of good.

Some of the best times I've had have been target shooting and hunting with my firearms. I have never used a firearm unsafely, or used it to commit a crime.
You who are so determined to ban guns never seem to realize how many legitimate purposes guns have, or how easy it will still be to get an illegal gun.... That will only leave me screwed, as I follow the law.
A criminal doesn't care a whit about the law, and will still get ahold of guns. Criminals aside, i have no desire to try to scare off animals that are bigger and hungrier than me with just my voice.
I'd encourage you to go read infiti's posts earlier in this topic. He's quite loquacious.

 

[DeletedUser]

Point proven. You skip over any statistics that don't agree with your view point(the rest of the article), as you are convinced your view is right. As I said, we can both find statistics for and against our viewpoints. You've proven my point far better than i could have myself.

And you, sir, have proved mine - a pretty childish tactic don't you think?
I only pointed out some of the more obvious pitfalls in your stats - I'm sorry that you aren't satisfied that I didn't point out more.
As for my viewpoint, I try to base it on the evidence. If there's a better way, I haven't heard of it.

436k violent crimes a year... and i live in bear country....and I'm responsible for several hundred head of cattle... why on earth WOULDN'T i want to have a gun?
If i have a gun, i can scare off animals, or attackers, or capture them, or kill them. If i don't have a gun, i can say "Well, ##%! And be a passive victim, and hope i survive, then drive(assuming they didn't steal the car if it's a human) 10 miles to get cell service to call 911 which will show up too late to do a damned bit of good.

If you want to talk about the US, let's not forget the 99% who don't live in bear country. I've carried a knife when on foot in cougar country but I don't need to on my local high street. I've camped, hiked and biked in bear country without a firearm, too and I was just fine. Like I said, our little stories don't matter a damn in the big picture.

You who are so determined to ban guns never seem to realize how many legitimate purposes guns have

I don't think anyone has argued for an outright blanket ban - gun control is something different.