Gun Control

[ZeroAX]

OMG such quality journalism. Thank god amazing articles like that exist to justify your blind to the facts opinion.

It's not like this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate has the US listed at 4.1 homicides with guns per 100K people and the UK (well England and Wales) at just 0.07 (which even if you double it, heck triple it if you like, is noooooooooowhere near what you guys have).

But please keep on saying that banning guns makes things worse. Clearly numbers is something most people don't do well with.

Also a quick google search can find you any kind of stories to support your opinion (for example: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 32069.html ). But numbers never lie (unless they are my government's budget report).

[Erik_Twice]

Dude, firegun crime is like one hundred times less in the UK than in the US. And I don't think quoting the SUn and the Daily Mail really help much.

[ZeroAX]

Dude, firegun crime is like one hundred times less in the UK than in the US. And I don't think quoting the SUn and the Daily Mail really help much.

Next you'll tell us that Fox News isn't a respectable source of news for people with working brains.

[Menegrothx]

It's not like this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate has the US listed at 4.1 homicides with guns per 100K people and the UK (well England and Wales) at just 0.07 (which even if you double it, heck triple it if you like, is noooooooooowhere near what you guys have).

It's not like the same page states that Jamaica has over 10 times the gun homicides of USA with 47.44 and South Africa is leading the gun homicide statistics despite the fact that they have tough gun control laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Jamaica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... uth_Africa
Homicide rates have been declining in the USA over the years despite the fact that there are more legal guns and people carrying guns every year

US homicide rate.GIF (4.29 KiB) Viewed 641 times

And I'm not American. I can tell you that despite the relatively high rate of gun ownership in my country, the chance of getting killed with a legally purchased gun here is 20 times lower than the chance of winning the grand prize in lottery, accoring to the official statistics. In fact many European nations do have a high number of legally owned guns, even besides Switzerland, Estonia and Czech Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country

But please keep on saying that banning guns makes things worse. Clearly numbers is something most people don't do well with.

While you conviniently ignore my original post with all the statistics

You are twisting what I said. I haven't stated that banning guns makes things automatically worse, I've said that the gun ban in England does not work as criminals still can purchase illegal guns and there are gang shootings and such happening there. Maybe the level of gun crime in England is lower, but the fact is that criminals still can purchase illegal firearms there (even if they do not use them nearly as frequently as they would in more dangerous countries such as USA)

Dude, firegun crime is like one hundred times less in the UK than in the US. And I don't think quoting the SUn and the Daily Mail really help much.

Both the taxi driver going berserk and the young girl getting shot case were reported in my local newspapers so I have no reason to believe that they are a some kind of conspiracy. Maybe the statistics in those other articles are wrong, but both of the shootings did happen.

[ZeroAX]

Really comparing the US to Jamaica and South Africa?

Then my country must be doing fine economically, cause there exist 3 other countries with higher debt than us (funny that one of them is Japan, but that's a special case).


I'm sorry but the fact that SOME shootings happen doesn't change the fact that shootings in the US are muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch more common than they should be for such a rich country.

[Menegrothx]

Really comparing the US to Jamaica and South Africa?

Same could be said about comparing the UK to the US (see pic below)

I'm sorry but the fact that SOME shootings happen doesn't change the fact that shootings in the US are muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch more common than they should be for such a rich country.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... t_2009.svg

If you looked at states individually, you'd see that many states have a very reasonable homicide rate. New Hampshire and Vermont both have less murders than Greece or United Kingdom despite their gun laws. The level of social security and mobility is a lot higher in Europe on average than it is in United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ted_States

[Luke]

Gang and senseless gun related deaths really inflate the US numbers. Instead of being jumped in, many gangs in Chicago and other cities/affiliations require you to kill an innocent.

What are the stats on fist related murders?

[ZeroAX]

Really comparing the US to Jamaica and South Africa?

Same could be said about comparing the UK to the US (see pic below)

I'm sorry but the fact that SOME shootings happen doesn't change the fact that shootings in the US are muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch more common than they should be for such a rich country.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... t_2009.svg

If you looked at states individually, you'd see that many states have a very reasonable homicide rate. New Hampshire and Vermont both have less murders than Greece or United Kingdom despite their gun laws. The level of social security and mobility is a lot higher in Europe on average than it is in United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ted_States

I'm sorry but you are just being silly. I only see 4 states out of the 50+ with a lower homicide rate than Greece. And I can selectively take out the 2 regions with the must crime and get that down to zero levels.

Crime is a product of social and economic reasons. But providing the criminal a means to kill somebody that is so easy and impersonal (it's much easier to pull a trigger than stab someone to death, mental health wise at least. Ofc a psycho would do both, but it's beyond the point), will just make things worse.

Question: does the gun law cover tanks? I know this might sound silly, but I wonder if a rich person could buy a tank or a fighter jet.

[t0yrobo]

Crime is a product of social and economic reasons.

Seriously people, don't ever forget this. It's a far more important factor in crime than gun laws will ever be.

Also if South Africa and Jamaica are going to be used as examples of a places with harsh gun laws, lets talk about Japan and South Korea as well. They have some of the harshest gun control regulations in the world, they also have some of the lowest rates of gun related deaths in the world.

[J T]

I was wondering if I should contribute to this discussion.
It bothers me to see people that I believe are reasonable taking somewhat unreasonable views. That also goes for gun control proponents misrepresenting what the other side says (which is often pretty reasonable as well).

This really doesn't need to be that complicated (says the guy with the huge post). Basically what JReece said in two lines earlier in the thread. I support having stricter restrictions to access to driving and shooting.

It is a question of freedoms. But some freedoms are more important than others - and reducing the chance of getting hurt in accidents or intentionally is clearly more important than someone else having extremely low barrier of access to some things.
This is easily seen if you take things to the extreme - I think even those against gun control do not argue that regular people should have a right to own powerful explosives (right? I hope not; if you still think that is reasonable stretch it up to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons until you are convinced there has to be a line somewhere). So it is a question of *where* to draw the line, and personally I think for urban self-defence regular citizens do not *need* lethal weapons. Nowadays there are many other options. Hunting is a different matter, and Ack has good examples of rural self-defence where something like a taser would not cut it.

Unreasonable restriction of freedom is not letting flight travellers carry bottles of water through security, not forcing people that want to own guns to go through training and getting licenses for it

It is hard for me to imagine anyone reasonable claiming that everyone should be able to drive motorbikes, automobiles or even trucks. So laws exist that require citizens to take tests and have licenses in order to drive. And roughly, the more likely the vehicle is to cause damage to 3rd parties, the strictest it is to get the license (at least in categories, I think getting a license to drive trucks is more demanding - it is in the countries I know about). Notice that motorbikes - arguably the most dangerous to the driver - are usually the least restricted. So it is about 3rd parties.
I actually think, given the huge amount of accidents, that regulations for driving are currently too lenient - but that is another topic.

Given that it is apparently not difficult to accept that it is a good idea to regulate access to using things - such as vehicles - that can be used intentionally or accidentally to cause damage to 3rd parties... I really do not see why so many people apparently object to some restrictions on the right to own and operate guns - as if the entire idea was unreasonable! And the license should be stricter for more serious stuff like those capable of automatic fire. Is anyone in the thread really objecting to this? Please explain to me why...

Also, in any place where getting a gun / license to have a gun legally is easier than getting a driving license, I think something went wrong. Given the primary purposes of each (respectively moving somewhere efficiently for vehicles and causing damage efficiently for guns), and comparing their more peaceful uses (transportation for one, hunting and self-defence respectively) I really have a hard time imagining a sensible context for access to guns being easier than access to driving (which I already said above I think is currently too easy, given the huge amount of accidents even in many developed countries).

Granted, you can say that even without a driving license I can buy a car and have it, just not drive it, so maybe they could sell the guns but not the ammo if you don't have the license, or something like that. You can always get around that by getting someone with the license to provide it for you, just as you can drive without a license of course. But those would (and should) be heavily penalized.

In European countries you can get access to guns legally, it is just harder. If you feel like you really need it then go through the effort, get trained and get the license.
Unlike what people have said, the harder access DOES make a difference (read Curlypaul's posts for example). As far as I remember, regular *police* in the U.K. don't carry firearms, that really tells you something I think.

Possibly the reason harder access does not make much of a difference in some U.S. states is that smuggling across state borders is much easier than bringing guns across national borders into e.g. the U.K.

Ivo.

Great post Ivo. Thumbs up.