Gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will also note (again) that comparing gun violence alone between countries does not indicate that correlation = causation. If you have research you can link to that suggests otherwise, please post it.

If you wish to view homicide rates for a more apples to apples comparison, start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


108 United States
153 Canada
168 United Kingdom
181 Australia
191 Germany

While the US leads the "short list" of countries we discussed, I believe there are some socioeconomic factors that contribute to our higher number. I am not sure if I have the data to do a proper comparison but at least here we are being honest about the issue and the discussion of real efforts to reduce those figures.
 
While this thread has been fun, I feel the topic will not be addressed at our level. While there are strong opinions on both sides, I believe that while laws will continue exist regulating guns, the right will remain protected under the constitution. Much like the abortion topic, most energy will go into the pro-life vs pro-choice debate than into the analysis and resolution of the factors that contribute.

See ya folks :)
 
Reeve of Shinra said:
1 - I posted a good neutral article some posts back about stricter gun laws in Australia after a similar tragedy and how it is inconclusive whether or not it has had a positive impact. (Australia always outlawed guns to my knowledge but I am not as familiar with their history).
Click to expand...

Gun ownership has never been huge here, and following our most tragic mass murder in which 38 people were killed by a lunatic with a military assault rifle, such weapons were banned by the government of the time.... and a buy back scheme was introduced, along with an amnesty on handing in illegal weapons, which caused thousands and thousands of them to be handed in or bought back and distroyed.

4431214-3x4-700x933.jpg


The NRA sponsored nonsense about Australia and the lack of effect this legislation had, has been widely de-bunked, all the BS about a massive spike in crime is just that.. Bullsh1t. Any vested interest group sponsored "research" is only useful as toilet paper, and should not be quoted, or relied on at all.

If you are referring to the actual unbiased scientific studies (of which there have been two to my knowledge) where the very dry researchers have had to draw inconclusive results, that is by and largely because our researchers employ proper methodology, and as such it might well be inconclusive as to if the buy back has had an effect, as for example biker gang gun crime is up, there is no doubt about it.. but it would have been up anyway, and as we don't have your paranoid delusions that owning a gun will prevent crime, it would have made no difference to those results, Joe Citizen doesn't pack an assault weapon to stop Bikie Gangland slayings (which these are by the way, they are all Grey on Grey killings) Dry facts can do that sometimes, they don't always represent what you think they might, nor what you want them too, they most assuredly do NOT BACK UP the argument that Gun Control is useless.


Here is a little something you might be interested in however....

The New York Times has referred to Australia's gun laws as a "road map" for the US, saying that "in the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings - but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect."...............ABC News - More
Click to expand...
 
Reeve of Shinra said:
I need to fact check this or find a more authoritative source but this article suggests that Europe has the same rate of multiple victim shootings as the United States... where is the gun control in europe!!!!
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...ltiple-victim-shootings-as-the-united-states/
Click to expand...
I don't have anything to say on this topic as I don't live in the US, but comparing America to a continent with different forms of governments, laws, legal systems, schooling, economic climates etc isn't really a fair comparison. Is it?
 
The USA is as large as most of (western) Europe and may be on par population wise. But I agree its an unfair comparison as, for the most part, european nations are more stable in terms of population and culture.
 
I love the analogy that Guns protect the freedom :)

You guys give up all your civilized rights in fear of terror and let big goverment watch all your rights

and still debate that Guns will protect your freedom :)

Hand guns etc.. will do nothing to prevent your freedom. Your free will will prevent your freedom. USA is not the only country that had a war for freedom. You are just acting ignorant to rest of the world and reality as usual.
 
Mert said:
I love the analogy that Guns protect the freedom :)

You guys give up all your civilized rights in fear of terror and let big goverment watch all your rights

and still debate that Guns will protect your freedom :)

Hand guns etc.. will do nothing to prevent your freedom. Your free will will prevent your freedom. USA is not the only country that had a war for freedom. You are just acting ignorant to rest of the world and reality as usual.
Click to expand...
Our free will will prevent our freedom? That's interesting. And as for your disdain for America, I don't think they're losing any sleep over it.
 
Funny how people argue against gun control, but yet talks about gun owners needs to be responsible for owning guns, which is exactly the intention of gun control, to force gun owners to assume that responsibility. If you are not able to live up to that responsibility, you shouldn't own a gun. For example, forced training before being able to own a gun is no different than having to take driving lessons before getting a drivers license.
 
Just to say, I am neither pro nor con for gun control. I live in the UK and I have (a now expired) license for a bolt action rifle when I used to do some casual range shooting.

However, can someone in the US tell me how owning a gun protects your freedoms? As in, if a law came in effect similar to the UK, and tomorow the majority of the population had no guns. Apart from having no guns, what else would change?

I am genuinely intregued by the notion. I don't feel my personal freedoms are effected by my ability to have a gun or not.
 
Reeve of Shinra said:
I will also note (again) that comparing gun violence alone between countries does not indicate that correlation = causation.
Click to expand...

It does when the problem one is fixing is gun violence. It is amusing to watch the gun lobbyists try to fix US health care system, educational system, social support services etc, blaming their inadequacies for gun violence. Gun violence among "normal" folks is the cause of the US high rate due to availability of guns.

As for your gun death rates. You are wrong there also,

US 9.2 per 100,000
Canada 4.78 (50% less, too close to US)
Germany 1.1.
Australia 1.05.
UK .05
 
MagnusB said:
Funny how people argue against gun control, but yet talks about gun owners needs to be responsible for owning guns, which is exactly the intention of gun control, to force gun owners to assume that responsibility. If you are not able to live up to that responsibility, you shouldn't own a gun. For example, forced training before being able to own a gun is no different than having to take driving lessons before getting a drivers license.
Click to expand...
Exactly....the arguments against guns are coming from people who have never owned one and I am guessing never fired one.

Stupid suggestions such as limiting a clip size to 10 is stupid....i show this....
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
no response as to how a smaller clip is the answer...

I mean I don't like when parents buy their kids cars that go 170 mph, but those kids still get them and they do drive around like a-holes and when they do kill someone it is isn't the car... it is the kid...how come when someone gets shot it isn't the kid, it is the gun. People who are against guns don't care about their right to own a firearm so they don't care if you lose yours...but now with a car, well that could be their kid...let's just sweep that under the rug.

Slavik said:
Just to say, I am neither pro nor con for gun control. I live in the UK and I have (a now expired) license for a bolt action rifle when I used to do some casual range shooting.

However, can someone in the US tell me how owning a gun protects your freedoms? As in, if a law came in effect similar to the UK, and tomorrow the majority of the population had no guns. Apart from having no guns, what else would change?

I am genuinely intrigued by the notion. I don't feel my personal freedoms are effected by my ability to have a gun or not.
Click to expand...

I was born with the right to own a firearm in my country....i was taught this since a young age, and I was raised with a firearm in my hands....I have never harmed a human who didn't intend to harm me first and I have been in compliance with all gun regulations since day 1.

Not having my guns would null a major part of my existence , my first real job at about 15 was working at a gun range, running a trap and sporting clays league, I shoot every weekend at that private club with a bunch of old-timers who happen to be cops or retired cops and ex military. With no guns there would be no gun club, there would be no old stories, their would be no big game suppers a large piece of my life would be taken from me...there would be no hunting...the one thing that allows me to be truly human in modern society and now I would not be able to do that because people here can only see logic in what they support and not in things they do not favor.



BGL said:
It does when the problem one is fixing is gun violence. It is amusing to watch the gun lobbyists try to fix US health care system, educational system, social support services etc, blaming their inadequacies for gun violence. Gun violence among "normal" folks is the cause of the US high rate due to availability of guns.

As for your gun death rates. You are wrong there also,

US 9.2 per 100,000
Canada 4.78 (50% less, too close to US)
Germany 1.1.
Australia 1.05.
UK .05
Click to expand...
You are not fixing anything....you are lowering one death rate and raising another...so you admit to being biased because you don't care about death rate. People who murder for any other reason than defense of themselves another, or their home are criminals and having a gun is besides the point that they are killers FIRST.
 
EQnoble said:
Not having my guns would null a major part of my existence , my first real job at about 15 was working at a gun range, running a trap and sporting clays league, I shoot every weekend at that private club with a bunch of old-timers who happen to be cops or retired cops and ex military. With no guns there would be no gun club, there would be no old stories, their would be no big game suppers a large piece of my life would be taken from me...there would be no hunting...the one thing that allows me to be truly human in modern society and now I would not be able to do that because people here can only see logic in what they support and not in things they do not favor.
Click to expand...

Theres a difference between the question and scenario I asked and your answer.

You answered as if guns are completely gone, I asked the question in the sence that if you have a legitimate reason for owning a gun, eg you do competition shooting or hunting, you would be allowed to continue owning one. If you owned one for the sake of owning one, then you would lose it.

So if you fall into the bottom half, eg you own a gun just 'cos you can own a gun... why would it make a difference or not? If you fall into the top half, then nothing would change for you apart from being subject to stricter rules.
 
Slavik said:
Theres a difference between the question and scenario I asked and your answer.

You answered as if guns are completely gone, I asked the question in the sence that if you have a legitimate reason for owning a gun, eg you do competition shooting or hunting, you would be allowed to continue owning one. If you owned one for the sake of owning one, then you would lose it.

So if you fall into the bottom half, eg you own a gun just 'cos you can own a gun... why would it make a difference or not? If you fall into the top half, then nothing would change for you apart from being subject to stricter rules.
Click to expand...
In our country, technically speaking...either you own a gun because you are law enforcement... or you own it just 'cus. Hunting, sporting, defense as a civilian are all just 'cus
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns


Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) is a coalition of over 600 mayors[2] who support a number of gun control initiatives that the group calls "commonsense reforms" to fight illegal gun trafficking and gun violence in the United States. Most recently the group has focused on an effort to defeat a bill in Congress that would require each state to recognize carry licenses issued by other states.[3]
The group was formed on April 25, 2006, during a summit held at Gracie Mansion in New York City that was hosted by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who serve as co-chairs of the coalition.
The initial group consisted of 15 mayors that signed a statement of principles[4] and set a goal to expand their membership to 50 mayors by the end of 2006. As of November 2009, there were 522 mayors listed on the membership roster at the MAIG website.


http://mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/
 
I DEMAND A PLAN
The horrific school shooting in Newtown, CT is the latest devastating example of the toll of gun violence. It's time for our leaders to take action.
Every day, 34 people are murdered with guns in this country. The "I Demand A Plan" video project records the personal stories of Americans whose lives were forever changed by these tragedies.
http://www.demandaplan.org/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

tribedude
Attention Canadian forum owners /administrators: We will be severely impacted by proposed Internet control laws C10 and C36.
Replies
2
Views
871
tribedude
tribedude
DeltaHF
Fixed Image Proxy's broken image placeholders should include "no-cache" Cache Control HTTP headers
Replies
1
Views
3K
XF Bug Bot
XF Bug Bot
Jaxel
Add Secondary Top Control?
Replies
4
Views
1K
xfrocks
xfrocks
Back
Top Bottom