Poll: Research on the Police has shown....

[Frostbite3789]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

Pffhahahahahahahahaha!

Why does America then have the highest murder rate within the first world countries?

The fact is that it far easier to commit a crime using a gun than without.
The fact is that if you own a gun you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound than without.
The fact is that anybody who tells you that guns make for a safer society is talking out of their arse.

Not to mention it's the highest populated of any first world country. But I guess it's easy to leave that out, right? I mean considering we have a state in the mainland three times the size of an average European country.

But who needs things like that when you can spew ignorant hate over an entire nationality, right?

 

[Nocola]

I honestly don't even know what to say to the people that steadfastly support the false idea that more guns/ less gun control = safer society, except...

Are you retarded?

 

[Kopikatsu]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

Pffhahahahahahahahaha!

Why does America then have the highest murder rate within the first world countries?

The fact is that it far easier to commit a crime using a gun than without.
The fact is that if you own a gun you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound than without.
The fact is that anybody who tells you that guns make for a safer society is talking out of their arse.

Not to mention it's the highest populated of any first world country. But I guess it's easy to leave that out, right? I mean considering we have a state in the mainland three times the size of an average European country.

But who needs things like that when you can spew ignorant hate over an entire nationality, right?

That's why these things are based on percentages instead of actual amounts.

 

[ACman]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

Pffhahahahahahahahaha!

Why does America then have the highest murder rate within the first world countries?

The fact is that it far easier to commit a crime using a gun than without.
The fact is that if you own a gun you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound than without.
The fact is that anybody who tells you that guns make for a safer society is talking out of their arse.

Not to mention it's the highest populated of any first world country. But I guess it's easy to leave that out, right? I mean considering we have a state in the mainland three times the size of an average European country.

But who needs things like that when you can spew ignorant hate over an entire nationality, right?

You do know what a rate means don't you? Ie number of murders per 100,000 head of population?

But then I remember the US school system.

 

[Frostbite3789]

You do know what a rate means don't you? Ie number of murders per 100,000 head of population?

But then I remember the US school system.

And you realize with a higher number of participants, percentages in all manner of surveys tends to rise, yes? It gives you a much higher chance of getting both people who are and aren't violent.

Lets say if you put 10 random people in a room, you're not likely to find a murderer. Take a 100 people and you're much more likely to have such a person, or more such people. It has a lot less to do with the country and more to do with individual people.

Edit: I forgot, that European superiority complex. No sense in trying to argue with it. Since they're clearly better than us.

 

[theonecookie]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

Pffhahahahahahahahaha!

Why does America then have the highest murder rate within the first world countries?

The fact is that it far easier to commit a crime using a gun than without.
The fact is that if you own a gun you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound than without.
The fact is that anybody who tells you that guns make for a safer society is talking out of their arse.

Not to mention it's the highest populated of any first world country. But I guess it's easy to leave that out, right? I mean considering we have a state in the mainland three times the size of an average European country.

But who needs things like that when you can spew ignorant hate over an entire nationality, right?

You do know that US has the highest homicide rate per 100,000 people of any first world country right , It's not ignorant hate its objective fact

In fact the only place to out do you is south africa and that place is a total shithole but then again I'll leave you to your own devices you'd do a fairly good job of justifying hate even if you where right

Seeing as i don't want to double post I'll work this in

And you realize with a higher number of participants, percentages in all manner of surveys tends to rise, yes? It gives you a much higher chance of getting both people who are and aren't violent.

Lets say if you put 10 random people in a room, you're not likely to find a murderer. Take a 100 people and you're much more likely to have such a person, or more such people. It has a lot less to do with the country and more to do with individual people.

Edit: I forgot, that European superiority complex. No sense in trying to argue with it. Since they're clearly better than us.

Did you stop to think about the sentence for more than a second in fact i can't even begin to think where you got that idea

while it is true that the more people you have the more likely you are to find a psycho the overall percentage will stay the same no matter how many people you have ten or a billion so overall the number of people wont affect the number of murders per 100'000 unless you have less than a 100'000 which the us clearly doesn't in fact you want more people because it make it more accurate

*puts on top hat and monocle*

Why yes good sir I am better than you in almost every way

 

[Frostbite3789]

Snip

Therefore, the entire country is homicidal maniacs. Obviously.

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

What I wonder via everyones thoughts is whether or not the problem is too few trained armed citizens (which is a constitutional right here and strongly supported and dictated by the founding fathers) or the absence of police obligated by law and review to do a proper job (or in general) of protecting the public.

Any thoughts?

Just to address the first part of your (false) dichotomy, the founding fathers did indeed support the right of citizens to bear arms, but they were talking about muskets, arquebuses, and dueling pistols. The founding fathers are not a good basis for our laws today. The founding fathers were the products of a completely different age. When they wrote the constitution, they had the enlightenment movement in Europe fresh on their minds; slavery was still growing in America, and very few people actually opposed the practice; guns were rather difficult to use and required near impossible skill to use effectively and accurately; the economy was focused in agriculture and had very little industry; environmental concerns were non-existent; rich, land owning, white men were considered (by most of the founding fathers at least) to be the only citizens allowed to vote and participate in government. It was an extremely different time, with extremely different concerns. The founding fathers would not, in any way, be prepared to deal the problems of the 21st century and would likely set us backward a few decades if put in charge of the country.

Back to the choice you've given me.

I believe that neither obligation bound police, nor armed citizens would help anything. Police with an obligation to protect the citizenry would be extremely ineffective in many complex situations. An obligation to protect the citizenry while enforcing the law would do nothing but open policemen up to unnecessary legal complications and backlash from the policemen who realize this. Increasing the percentage of armed citizenry would only cause an increase in zeal from those pushing for increased restrictions on gun ownership and a variable increase in the number of incidents (purposeful and accidental) involving guns. The only sure way to help protect the citizenry, that doesn't involve crazy oppressive military and police governments, would be to pull more people out of poverty. Poverty, arguably the largest influence on crime rates, is a real problem in many place all throughout the US, and if we were to somehow decrease the number of people in these situations that encourage people to adopt a life of crime, then crime rates would drop. If the US government could change those figures by significant numbers, then it would effectively protect the citizenry in the best possible way, by preventing them from ever being in danger in the first place.

 

[ACman]

You do know what a rate means don't you? Ie number of murders per 100,000 head of population?

But then I remember the US school system.

And you realize with a higher number of participants, percentages in all manner of surveys tends to rise, yes? It gives you a much higher chance of getting both people who are and aren't violent.

Lets say if you put 10 random people in a room, you're not likely to find a murderer. Take a 100 people and you're much more likely to have such a person, or more such people. It has a lot less to do with the country and more to do with individual people.

Edit: I forgot, that European superiority complex. No sense in trying to argue with it. Since they're clearly better than us.

That's really not how statistics work dude. If I took 30,000 Europeans and 30,000 Americans I would be more likely to find a victim of gun crime in the American group.

And its an Australian superiority complex (Because we're better) but I could have come from the US and my view wouldn't be any different. Why you'd make such an assumption I don't know.

 

[RipRoaringWaterfowl]

An obligated police force that works toward respecting and getting respect from the community is the best bet. Crime is lowest when a good police force works with a community, creating trust. The alternative, fear, works, but only until things go south, then one spark and BOOM! riots.

It's what happened in the UK. A only alright police force not repsected and possibly feared by the community shoots an unarmed man. The economy is down. The government is evil. When protests break out over the incedent, it unfortunately boiled over and the riots started.

The rioters deserve punishment, but the Met in London didn't do their job right. And their solution? Plastic bullets.

Way to go, Met. Way to go, Cameron. Not going to end well.

 

[Andothul]

The police weren't even invented until the late 19th century so why would anything about the police be in the Constitution?

But in response to the gun control thing. I consider myself a moderate liberal but gun control is an issue that is too often generalized and never broken down. I think armed citizens work in some places and not in others.

I live in Wisconsin and gun ownership is very prevalent here as well as drinking. Most people would think this would cause an abundance of problems but it doesn't.
WI has one of the lowest crime rates in the US. Why? Because guns and drinking do not have negative connotations here.

People drink to have fun, and have guns to hunt/protect themselves.
No one here who sees a gun on someone thinks hey that guy is probably gonna rob a store, they think hes probably going shooting at a range or going hunting.
It all depends on the culture of the area.

TL;DR A gun in downtown Chicago is different than a gun in rural Nebraska. Guns don't help or hurt crime rates, socio-economics do.

The level of crime has nothing to do with gun ownership and NRA people need to stop saying if everyone has guns crime would go down and 2nd amendment deniers need to stop saying crime would go down if no one had guns. THEY ARE BOTH WRONG

 

[Nerdstar]

And yet, the US has the highest murder and crime rate in the world.

surely you jest? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate

were not even in the top 35 when it comes to murder.

 

[Nocola]

You do know what a rate means don't you? Ie number of murders per 100,000 head of population?

But then I remember the US school system.

And you realize with a higher number of participants, percentages in all manner of surveys tends to rise, yes? It gives you a much higher chance of getting both people who are and aren't violent.

Lets say if you put 10 random people in a room, you're not likely to find a murderer. Take a 100 people and you're much more likely to have such a person, or more such people. It has a lot less to do with the country and more to do with individual people.

Edit: I forgot, that European superiority complex. No sense in trying to argue with it. Since they're clearly better than us.

Okay listen. The fact of the matter is if someone wants someone dead than yes, they will probably find a way to kill them. You're right - but, ONLY IF IT IS PREMEDIDATED. Most gun violence as you can imagine happens in the heat of the moment. Guns just make it that much easier to kill someone, TOO EASY and that's wy a more armed society, is a more dangerous society. Because the tools are in place for anyone, to kill anyone, in the time it takes to pull a trigger.

Now, do you know what a 5 minute lock is? It's exactly what it sounds like, a lock that goes on a weapon that will take at least 5 minutes to break. Now, do you know the reason? When someone wants someone dead (or themselves, just as likely) they'll find a way right? Those are your words. Now there's a gun handy. It's loaded. It's on the counter. It'll take you all of 2 seconds to pick it up, and shoot someone you're in an argument with. The difference is you can't willy nilly kill someone if the gun isn't readily accessible (these 5 minute locks are the law in some countries for a reason, you know) Or better yet, if you don't even get a gun in the first place.

 

[ACman]

You do know what a rate means don't you? Ie number of murders per 100,000 head of population?

But then I remember the US school system.

And you realize with a higher number of participants, percentages in all manner of surveys tends to rise, yes? It gives you a much higher chance of getting both people who are and aren't violent.

Lets say if you put 10 random people in a room, you're not likely to find a murderer. Take a 100 people and you're much more likely to have such a person, or more such people. It has a lot less to do with the country and more to do with individual people.

Edit: I forgot, that European superiority complex. No sense in trying to argue with it. Since they're clearly better than us.

Since you really want to compare to regions with the same population size

Murder rate per 100,000 year 2010

United States 5.1
Western and Central Europe 1.2

 

[SpAc3man]

The US has a mentality where anyone should have a right to have a gun. This is why everyone there has a gun and thus why gun violence is such a problem. If arming every second person prevented gun crime then there would be low gun crime in the US.

What really needs to happen is a massive crack down on firearms in the US. More restrictions, more hoops to jump through and more education before anyone is even allowed to be considered being allowed to have a gun.

Owning a firearm should be a privilege that is earned and maintained, not a constitutional right.

 

[theonecookie]

And yet, the US has the highest murder and crime rate in the world.

surely you jest? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate

were not even in the top 35 when it comes to murder.

I hate to tell you this but that list says your twelfth If your only counting north America

Interestingly enough your rated fifth for gun related deaths just behind 4 third world countries

Good job America land of the free and perforated

Edit: crud scratch that your 28 not twelfth was looking at the 2004 figures not the 2010 ones

Well good on you I guess

 

[Aaron Noble]

It's simple really. The more people who are armed, the less crime there is due to criminals knowing that their victims have guns.

So that's why the murder rate in Detroit is about 500x higher than Windsor,ON right across the river? *rolls eyes*

I'm assuming "ON" stands for Ontario, Canada. Canadian gun laws require you to take a safety class so you know what you're doing when you do get a gun. Criminals who get their guns illegally don't get these classes. So their potential victims not only have guns, they know how to use them better.

that and the fact that the population of detroit is 950k while windsor is about 215k. When you have almost a million people all standing in eachothers "pissing ground" or "turf" or wtf ever then things get a little heated.

 

[Vyxz]

I live in Australia and we have extremely strict gun control which appears to work really well. I certainly think the US needs better control and the idea that "it is our right to bear arms" is just plain stupid. If you did not have that 'right' to begin with you would not need it now to protect yourself.

The only problem I see with restricting gun ownership in the US now is that it has hit a point of no return. If you restrict guns now people who will actually use them for lawful protection may not have access to them yet with so many already in circulation criminals are going to be able to get guns as easily as they always have.

 

[Henkie36]

And I quote: ''Protects our right... To go deer hunting with an Uzi.'' (Shoot 'Em Up) Just one of many examples of how unneccesary these laws are. Why do Americans feel the need to keep a 220 year old law that has gone out of date before even the Civil War started? Maybe on the frontier, but those worlds have been conquered, and the other reason was to keep the Brits out, but with an annual budget of 685 billion dollars you can't exactly call the US military cheap.
The time for vigilantes is over. And just because the governments don't want to lose the votes of the right-wing nut-jobs, the laws are still where they were 220 years ago.
When you realize that US citizens carry more guns the ten largest armed forces in the world put together, and that 280 million out of the 550 million guns in world wide circulation are in the hands of US citizens (that means 9 guns per every 10 Americans), doesn't it make you say: ''Maybe it has gotten out of control?'' But no, you just want an AK-47 to shoot your children when you thought it was a burglar.

 

[Fishyash]

I don't know if legalizing/"illegalizing" guns will make a difference to crime. I don't really believe that guns being banned in the UK has made the crime rates better. Whether guns are legal or not, crime is illegal.

I think there are definitely better ways to crack down on crime, like improving the average living standards. (for example, lower unemployment rates).

All I know that in the UK, it's not quite gun crime, but there's definitely lots of talk about knife crime. If it isn't guns, it's gonna be something else.