Question for anti-gun:

[A Distant Star]

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, you're one of those people.

But anyway- perhaps I should have clarified, that statistic didn't include all gun deaths, just homicides.
But, the only point I was attempting to make is if you don't give an idiot a gun, they won't be able to shoot it.

I was mostly joking when I said that. and it's still incorrect. It's about 12,000 gun homicides in 2010, and more than that in years previous.

Also, while idiots can't shoot guns if guns are banned, the evidence doesn't bear out that fewer guns means less crime.

Like was said earlier in this thread, comparing state to state doesnt really work because its so easy to take a gun from one state into another. You 'can' argue that guncontrol wouldnt work for the US. But you 'cant' argue that guncontrol wont work for anyone. Because as far as the rest of the west is concerned, its pretty much worked for everyone.

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

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

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

Further, China and Japan have extremely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[teknoarcanist]

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

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

And that's pretty much it.

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

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

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

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

 

[spartan231490]

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

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

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

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

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

Citation needed.

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

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

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

 

[ElPatron]

Sigh.

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

Finally someone sane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[A Distant Star]

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

Well, all of that is bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun regulation laws in Norway didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik, gun control isn't about murder rates, and it's a strawman to say they are. Gun control is about accidental death by guns.

 

[teknoarcanist]

No one's saying guns cause murder. They're saying guns make murder damn easy, and when someone has the intent to commit murder, having a tool purpose-made to kill human beings greatly increases the effect of that intent.

Gun regulation laws in Norway didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik.

No, they certainly didn't. But guess how many gun murders Norway has a year?

2009: 9
2008: 3
2007: 2
2006: 10
2005: 5

Breivik was a horrible anomaly, and he's proof that evil men will go to great lengths. But he doesn't change a simple and straightforward fact: guns are tools which are made for killing. When they are readily available to persons who intend to kill, those persons are able to kill much more effectively.

 

[spartan231490]

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, you're one of those people.

But anyway- perhaps I should have clarified, that statistic didn't include all gun deaths, just homicides.
But, the only point I was attempting to make is if you don't give an idiot a gun, they won't be able to shoot it.

I was mostly joking when I said that. and it's still incorrect. It's about 12,000 gun homicides in 2010, and more than that in years previous.

Also, while idiots can't shoot guns if guns are banned, the evidence doesn't bear out that fewer guns means less crime.

Like was said earlier in this thread, comparing state to state doesnt really work because its so easy to take a gun from one state into another. You 'can' argue that guncontrol wouldnt work for the US. But you 'cant' argue that guncontrol wont work for anyone. Because as far as the rest of the west is concerned, its pretty much worked for everyone.

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

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

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

Further, China and Japan have extremely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never said they were high, I said they went up.

"Gun control isn't a fix all solution sure enough. But it does make it harder for people to kill each other." Source please. I have half a dozen links that show more gun control doesn't mean less murder so it obviously doesn't make it that much harder. Show me one study.

Looking at an area that institutes gun control both before and after the laws went into effect is a pretty damn good way. So is comparing a large number of states or countries, just due to the nature of statistics. If you don't think so then you better just ignore everything that has ever been concluded by psychology, sociology, or any social science, because all of their studies do the same thing. Because they can't control for the number of variables involved, they just use a large, random sample size so that the differences will end up on both sides. That way you have rich and poor on both sides, white and black, ect.

You take away the means for the 11(something like that, it's in one of the links in my OP) mass murders that happen each year, but you also take away the means of protection used millions of times per year. Those scales don't balance out as simply as you are suggesting they do. There is quite a bit of evidence against the assertion that fewer guns means fewer crimes. Like in my OP how states that have gone from banning concealed handgun carry to allowing it have seen statistically significant reductions in the rates of murders, robberies, and rapes. I won't say it's conclusive, there are too many variables to draw a definitive conclusion that more handguns means less crime, but there is literally no evidence at all that more guns means more crime. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that more guns =/= more crime or, gun control does not reduce crime. It might actually increase crime, or it might not effect it one way or the other, but it certainly doesn't reduce it.

 

[Kragg]

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

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

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

Your aiming *will* suck, period.

think you messed up your quoting there, i never said that ^^

 

[A Distant Star]

No one's saying guns cause murder. They're saying guns make murder damn easy, and when someone has the intent to commit murder, having a tool purpose-made to kill human beings greatly increases the effect of that intent.

Gun regulation laws in Norway didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik.

No, they certainly didn't. But you know how many gun-murders Norway has in a given year? Double digits. Or single. That's telling.

Breivik was a horrible anomaly, but he doesn't change the facts.

I actually think that is more indicative of Norway's excellent justice system. Norwegian jails only have a 20% recidivism rate.

Honestly, my statement wasn't to undermine Norway, or gun control, I'm a proponent of gun control. Just saying that crazy people will get there hands on guns no mater what the law.

Was there any evidence at all that James Holmes bought his weapons through legitimate means?

 

[teknoarcanist]

No one's saying guns cause murder. They're saying guns make murder damn easy, and when someone has the intent to commit murder, having a tool purpose-made to kill human beings greatly increases the effect of that intent.

Gun regulation laws in Norway didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik.

No, they certainly didn't. But you know how many gun-murders Norway has in a given year? Double digits. Or single. That's telling.

Breivik was a horrible anomaly, but he doesn't change the facts.

I actually think that is more indicative of Norway's excellent justice system. Norwegian jails only have a 20% recidivism rate.

Honestly, my statement wasn't to undermine Norway, or gun control, I'm a proponent of gun control. Just saying that crazy people will get there hands on guns no mater what the law.

Right. So it's a question of, will they be the anomalous outliers who are both foul enough of intent and determined enough in means -- or will they be a common occurrence, of crazy people doing crazy things, and their actions made more damaging by ready access to deadly weaponry? I'd bet a great deal of money that if we sold grenades at Wal-Mart, instances of murder-by-grenade would increase. Ditto for nuclear weapons, anthrax capsules, or orbital lasers.

 

[spartan231490]

*snip*

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

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

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

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

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

Would you suggest I accept the assertion that gravity is a lie without any evidence. I am willing to listen to any argument, but one that just states an opinion which directly contradicts all of the scientific evidence I can find isn't valid. I'm not just going to say, ok you must be right, just because you say so.

Switzerland has almost as many guns as us and fewer mass shootings or shootings in general than just about anywhere. Comparing one country directly to another is meaningless. It's like comparing one white man to one black man and saying that because the white man is skinny and the black man is fat that being black makes you fat. That's what I meant by whoopedy do. The crime rates in Switzerland are so low they don't even keep statistics the way other countries do. Their gun control is much less strict than say the UK and they have less crime. By your logic, this means that loose gun control makes the streets safer. Show me a study. Not one random completely irrelevant factoid. A study. one


But I'll even address what you said, irrelevant as it may be. When were those laws put in place, because your murder rate has been decreasing at virtually the same rate since 1989, from your very own source. If your gun control laws, which you say were established in the 90s, were responsible for this decline, you would see a visible downturn in the graph at the time the laws went into effect, or shortly thereafter. Yet your source shows no such downturn. Your gun laws didn't decrease your murder rate, it was falling when the laws went into effect, and had no effect on that decrease. So even your one irrelevant factoid supports my opinion, and not your own.

 

[ElPatron]

think you messed up your quoting there, i never said that ^^

Wow, can't even understand how I messed up the quote. Sorry about that.

No one's saying guns cause murder. They're saying guns make murder damn easy, and when someone has the intent to commit murder, having a tool purpose-made to kill human beings greatly increases the effect of that intent.

Gun regulation laws in Norway didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik.

No, they certainly didn't. But guess how many gun murders Norway has a year?

2009: 9
2008: 3
2007: 2
2006: 10
2005: 5

Breivik was a horrible anomaly, and he's proof that evil men will go to great lengths. But he doesn't change a simple and straightforward fact: guns are tools which are made for killing. When they are readily available to persons who intend to kill, those persons are able to kill much more effectively.

YES, WHILE PEOPLE ARE COMPARING THE MENTALITY OF SPREE KILLERS WHILE OBTAINING GUNS LET'S IGNORE THE ARGUMENT AND COMPARE THE UNITED STATES TO A COUNTRY WITH MUCH LESS POVERTY AND MUCH HIGHER STANDARDS OF LIFE!

No one's saying guns cause murder. They're saying guns make murder damn easy, and when someone has the intent to commit murder, having a tool purpose-made to kill human beings greatly increases the effect of that intent.

Target rifles/handguns and hunting rifles were not designed to take down humans yet they do it just like any other firearm. I don't see your point.

 

[A Distant Star]

No one's saying guns cause murder. They're saying guns make murder damn easy, and when someone has the intent to commit murder, having a tool purpose-made to kill human beings greatly increases the effect of that intent.

Gun regulation laws in Norway didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik.

No, they certainly didn't. But you know how many gun-murders Norway has in a given year? Double digits. Or single. That's telling.

Breivik was a horrible anomaly, but he doesn't change the facts.

I actually think that is more indicative of Norway's excellent justice system. Norwegian jails only have a 20% recidivism rate.

Honestly, my statement wasn't to undermine Norway, or gun control, I'm a proponent of gun control. Just saying that crazy people will get there hands on guns no mater what the law.

Right. So it's a question of, will they be the anomalous outliers who are both foul enough of intent and determined enough in means -- or will they be a common occurrence, of crazy people doing crazy things, and their actions made more damaging by ready access to deadly weaponry?

Well Spartan is right about access to guns not effecting crime rates. There's a lot of credible research to back that claim up. But there are numbers that do go down when a country has credible gun control laws, which is accidental death by guns. Also the ability to track a weapon is an invaluable asset to investigators when a crime is committed. If you make guns completely illegal you simply create a black market, better to have them permitted but controlled. Serial and registration numbers, background checks, and mandatory training on use and maintenance are all tools that should be used to help prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who will be irresponsible with them.

 

[spartan231490]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't address your first two paragraphs because they're opinions. Your opinions differ from mine, I don't care. Had I been in the theater with a gun, I'm reasonably confident I could have hit him somewhere not covered by his body armor. You're not, I accept that, and I can't prove it unless I put myself in a room with tear gas and people shooting at me. I can point out that other mass shootings have been stopped because the victim, in nearly as traumatic circumstances, managed to wound or kill the attacker. I could point out that this is a reason to ban body armor, not guns. But I see no reason to provide evidence, as you didn't.

So what, one instance doesn't even establish correlation, let alone causality. Does one fat black man prove that being black makes you fat? That is exactly the kind of logic you are using against me.

But, lets ignore the irrelevance of one single data point. Lets ignore the cultural differences between the US and Canada, as well as the differences in level of organized crime.

Did your murder rate decrease ever since your gun laws were put into place? If not, it would show that other forms of violence rose enough to cause the same number of deaths, despite the possibly lower fatality rate. This would also mean that there were more injuries and the same number of deaths as a result of your gun restriction. Lets say your murder rate did decrease ever since. Was it decreasing at a similar rate before the restrictions? If so, that just proves your nation was getting less violent, it doesn't even establish correlation with the increased restriction of firearms, let alone causality. In order for your strict gun control laws to even be correlated with the reduced rates of murder and other violent crimes, the decrease would have had to have become more prominent when the laws were enacted, or shortly thereafter.

That's why I asked for studies, because little factoids mean absolutely nothing. Switzerland has almost as many guns per capita as the US does, and laws that are less restrictive than many states, but their crime rates are so low they don't even keep statistics on crime. Does this mean that less gun control and more guns in the US will drop our crime rates to the same level as Switzerland? No. Isolated data points are meaningless.

 

[A Distant Star]

YES, WHILE PEOPLE ARE COMPARING THE MENTALITY OF SPREE KILLERS WHILE OBTAINING GUNS LET'S IGNORE THE ARGUMENT AND COMPARE THE UNITED STATES TO A COUNTRY WITH MUCH LESS POVERTY AND MUCH HIGHER STANDARDS OF LIFE!

Well, while your use of all caps and bold is more then a little annoying, it doesn't invalidate you're point. There's a reason gun crime is always highest among poor neighborhoods.

 

[WaysideMaze]

you realise it all started with a police shooting right ... I dont know what you are trying to say, if they all had guns it would be better, cept not shooting them. and I believe in a riot situation it is better to contain and control than to go in bashing people, not that mistakes weren't made, loads were.

If there are ever major riots in the US again with armed citizens that would be a mess bigger than harlems

Yes I knew, but, before you go on, I'd like to listen to how criminals are justified in their actions......

You say guns would have solved the situation. He then states guns initiated the situation. You then ask him to justify criminal actions. I can't even begin to comprehend your logic.

 

[spartan231490]

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

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

And that's pretty much it.

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

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

There's no logical fallacy.

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

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

That's a pretty solid assumption yes?

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

You're saying that you can "handicap the efficiency" of murderers without reducing the murder rate. That's exactly what your first post said. This is obviously inaccurate. As more gun control doesn't reduce murder rates, than it either doesn't decrease the efficiency of criminals, or it makes them more likely to try which would result in the same number of murders but more assaults and attempted murders. While it's true you would probably reduce accidental deaths related to firearms, that's a blip in the radar screen. Not even a blip, it's a smudge. Fatal firearm accidents make up less than 1/2 of a percent of all fatal accidents in the US. Drowning and fire each kill more people every year, so maybe we should ban swimming and having campfires/bonfires. Guns serve as much recreational value as these things, and more practical value, so we should ban swimming before we ban guns.

People who die are just as dead if they are shot, knifed, or bludgeoned to death. Unless gun control significantly reduces the number of deaths(which it doesn't), then the positive effects of guns outweigh the negatives.

 

[spartan231490]

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

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

And that's pretty much it.

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

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

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

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

That's why it's so important to look at murder rates specifically. If it reduced the efficiency of criminals, then murder rates would go down even if violent crime rates didn't, but murder rates don't go down. You don't save lives by increasing gun control, as much as it seems like you should, it doesn't happen. Whether a person survives an attack has much more to do with A) the intent of the attacker, B)how many people were around, and C) how quickly they get medical treatment, than it does with the weapon used by the attacker.