Question for anti-gun:

[Penguinis Weirdus]

snip

OP, just to help you out, since all these people from foreign countries like to post about the UK and lack of gun violence... all you need to do is look at the England riots and how the police did nothing (since they had no firearms) and had to wait for backup to confront looters, who by that time where done and ran away to coordinate another attack via social media.

EDIT: it's a very interesting read and look into a country that has to handle modern situations with lack of firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

I am not touching the Gun thing with a 100 mile pole I was just reading this thread becuase I was bored but I have to ask. Are you actually saying that the riots would have been better handeled by shoting everybody? Really?

EDIT: For what it is worth the above statment was not me. One of my ARSEHOLE friends was using my laptop, saw your post and desided to use my account to troll you. I do not agree with you but I do realise you are not saying that shoting the rioters would have made things better.

On top of that, I don't know how you think you are meant to control riots if the first thing that you want the police to do is go out and shoot people? Believe me our police force (and to an extent our Army) knows how to deal with Civil disorder. If the police had gone out and just shot the rioters on that first night, there would have been a hell of a lot more rioting.

EDIT: Also why do some pro-gun people think they need to fear their government to the point where they need firearms to "deter" the government? That to me says that they don't have any faith in democracy

 

[Hagi]

Here's the thing.

People pro gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does not work.

People anti gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does work.

Why are your 'facts' better than their 'facts'?

You forget there are about 5 dozen studies showing no correlation whatsoever. THAT is where I get my studies. My home town has a 100% gun ownership rate and has maintained a 0% murder rate for the past 150 years. You could probably find a town out there where you have a 0% gun ownership rate and a 0% murder rate. Why, because guns are irrelevant. Socio-economic cultural elements determine murder rates not the presence of an object.

Do you know what anecdotal evidence is?

Look it up and find out how utterly irrelevant your town is as an example.

And I'm sure that if one went looking they'd have absolutely no problem finding 5 dozen studies showing a correlation for guns either increasing or decreasing crime.

It's simple arrogance to believe you have the answers and know exactly how things work in matters as complicated as this. Not to mention incredibly close-minded because you believe the matter closed with yourself in the right.

This whole thing isn't nearly so simple as you make it out to be, matters like this almost never are.

 

[elvor0]

The one that gets me is "It's to stop the government taking over!" That would've made sense when the constitution was written, when people had muskets and there was an even chance that if they wanted to, the people could've overthrown the Government. It is now 2012, your handgun isn't going to amount to shit if the government (for some insane reason) decides it's going to become 1984, the government has Predator Drones, Tanks, Airstrikes, an Airforce, a Navy, Nukes and whatever other Heavy Artillery it has available, if they wanted to take over, they could do it and no amount of NRA members is going to be able to stop them.

Though that's true, firearms would be useful for defending civilians from, say, government backed thugs doing things like frightening certain demographics away from voting booths.

Now, that has happened in the US over race lines, you've had black people beaten up by white supremacists to scare them away from voting, and you have Republicans claiming Obama had scary black men frightening white people away, and that's why he won...many Republicans are big believers of Democrats only winning due to illegal means.

-snip-

That is a fair point I suppose, although I'm not sure how much that happens these days, I'm sure it's quite likely that some of the parties would participate in underhanded methods in order to get votes. I can't see Obama doing it, he seemed like a genuinely good person in the run up to the elections and when he won, these days he seems a bit of a non entity. Not bad, but not great either, but then I don't keep up with American politics beyond what gets touched on in panel shows and the like. I can certainly see some of the more extreme Republicans doing it, because some of those guys are fucking mental, but I can't see Obama ordering it himself, and if it did happen, I'd like to hope that it was some extremist nutter working for him.

snip

OP, just to help you out, since all these people from foreign countries like to post about the UK and lack of gun violence... all you need to do is look at the England riots and how the police did nothing (since they had no firearms) and had to wait for backup to confront looters, who by that time where done and ran away to coordinate another attack via social media.

EDIT: it's a very interesting read and look into a country that has to handle modern situations with lack of firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

I should hope you're not implying that the police should've just started shooting people during the riots, because that would've made matters /a lot/ worse, the fallout from the police shooting people would have been catastrophic. Not that I agree with the rioters either, they completely undermined what it should've been about; they went around smashing up things just for the sake of it, including family owned and independent stores, who had nothing to do with the economic crisis and were just as much in the shit as everyone else, and had their shops burned out for their troubles, but discussing the implications for the riots a different topic entirely and not what we're discussing here, so I'm not really going to go into that.

 

[Kragg]

Here's the thing.

People pro gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does not work.

People anti gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does work.

Why are your 'facts' better than their 'facts'?

You forget there are about 5 dozen studies showing no correlation whatsoever. THAT is where I get my studies. My home town has a 100% gun ownership rate and has maintained a 0% murder rate for the past 150 years. You could probably find a town out there where you have a 0% gun ownership rate and a 0% murder rate. Why, because guns are irrelevant. Socio-economic cultural elements determine murder rates not the presence of an object.

quick google search finds multiple places in taxes with 0% murderrate (Salado, Kempner, Parker), but they are also under 5000 pop, mine is aswell, this is way too small a sample size and for arguments sake irrelevant. Also, being a gunsmith makes your opinion, and it is just that, not fact, highly suspect to bias. That is how it is for alot of people, you mean well im sure. Having a gun is actually a socio- economic cultural element in America is seems

 

[RicoADF]

the point of guns isnt to defend they are designed to kill others, they have no purpose other than to kill.

but frankly im beyond caring what the americans do, you guys want machine guns in every household? go for it. the country is too scared about everything from someone of a different skin colour breaking into their house, to terrorists through to some conspiracy of the UN removing their weapons and they have how many times more guns than people these days that its impossible to remove them.

as for the latest shooting.. the guy had body armour. say 20 people in that mass of people were armed with pistols.what do you honestly see happening with a large group of people,, gun fire being heard and a pile of strangers with guns in the crowd? you know with hindsight there was one shooter. you know with hidsight what he looked like and what he was using. you would have a pile of paniced people firing at other people in the crowd who they saw had guns. the death toll would of been much higher in all probablity

TLDR
while i get a good chunk of the country wants gun control america has a gun culture, and until thats adressed its impossible to properly solve the issue of gun crime there. if you want more guns on the street and in houses then be prepared to deal with the consequences

What consequences? That people can defend themselves from criminals and enjoy a good day out hunting or sport shooting at the range? I am perfectly prepared to deal with those consequences.
What evidence do you even try to offer? Nothing. Just ifs, maybes, and hypotheticals. I have evidence and science. More guns does not mean more crime, does not mean more murder, does not mean more death. There are no negative consequences to keeping guns legal.

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.

And most importantly, body armor sucks. It stops handgun rounds well, but it's useless against rifle rounds. In the right conditions, even a handgun will go through it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGw_D9KSIok
Take the standard issue cop flak vest, myth-busters shot through it with their very first rifle, which I think was a .22LR I can't for the life of me find a video of it, they were testing a BP vest. Oh well, can't find it. However, many handguns are chambered for .22 magnum, which is nearly identical to the .223 rifle round.

There have been how many school, cinema and other shootings in the US? Now how many shootings can I think of in Australia... umm 1, which caused our strict gun laws and since then there haven't been mass shootings like the states see way too often. I prefer it our way thank you, as long as you keep your guns over there I have no problems but I will never see how people can blindly say that "it safe to allow guns to the average citizen" when its clear thats not the case.

 

[NoOne852]

As for gun laws in general I would do the following- to own guns you need Gun License. Then you can own any number of guns and carry concealed too. But to get the License you need to pass a training curse in:
Safe gun storage (so that your kid doesn't blow his brains out);
Safe gun handling (so you don't blow your own brains or your neighbor's);
Self Defense (so you know when it is appropriate to pull out your gun out and when NOT);

Basically explain them that 'Stand your ground' does not mean 'start confrontations with random people, then shoot them in the face'. Negligence with firearms, or letting them fall in criminals hands results in revocation of license and confiscation of weapons. And people with criminal records cant get the license.

Actually, there are such courses. To name two there are hunter saftey and in order to bare a concealed weapon (legally) you need a CCS permit which is obtained by a weekend trainning course. I've been trained in the former as well by family who also owns guns. The best comparision I can give is that operating guns is like driving a car. Maintain it, fix any possible problems to prevent malfunctions, understand how it works, and perhaps most importantly use common sense and there won't be an accident.

Also, there is restrictions when purchasing guns. They in fact do have background checks and will deny a deal if requirements are not meet. There are also levels (I don't recall the actual term, my apologies for that) for guns and with each level the restrictions make it more difficult to obtain the weapon. I believe the third level states you can only purchase the weapon if you need it for your job. (I am a US citizen for clarification and have been a hunter for almost a decade)

 

[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

 

[Nikolaz72]

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.

 

[kgpspyguy]

the point of guns isnt to defend they are designed to kill others, they have no purpose other than to kill.

but frankly im beyond caring what the americans do, you guys want machine guns in every household? go for it. the country is too scared about everything from someone of a different skin colour breaking into their house, to terrorists through to some conspiracy of the UN removing their weapons and they have how many times more guns than people these days that its impossible to remove them.

as for the latest shooting.. the guy had body armour. say 20 people in that mass of people were armed with pistols.what do you honestly see happening with a large group of people,, gun fire being heard and a pile of strangers with guns in the crowd? you know with hindsight there was one shooter. you know with hidsight what he looked like and what he was using. you would have a pile of paniced people firing at other people in the crowd who they saw had guns. the death toll would of been much higher in all probablity

TLDR
while i get a good chunk of the country wants gun control america has a gun culture, and until thats adressed its impossible to properly solve the issue of gun crime there. if you want more guns on the street and in houses then be prepared to deal with the consequences

Your right the people in Colorado

Here's the thing.

People pro gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does not work.

People anti gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does work.

Why are your 'facts' better than their 'facts'?

because the pro gun facts are true.

 

[spartan231490]

the point of guns isnt to defend they are designed to kill others, they have no purpose other than to kill.

but frankly im beyond caring what the americans do, you guys want machine guns in every household? go for it. the country is too scared about everything from someone of a different skin colour breaking into their house, to terrorists through to some conspiracy of the UN removing their weapons and they have how many times more guns than people these days that its impossible to remove them.

as for the latest shooting.. the guy had body armour. say 20 people in that mass of people were armed with pistols.what do you honestly see happening with a large group of people,, gun fire being heard and a pile of strangers with guns in the crowd? you know with hindsight there was one shooter. you know with hidsight what he looked like and what he was using. you would have a pile of paniced people firing at other people in the crowd who they saw had guns. the death toll would of been much higher in all probablity

TLDR
while i get a good chunk of the country wants gun control america has a gun culture, and until thats adressed its impossible to properly solve the issue of gun crime there. if you want more guns on the street and in houses then be prepared to deal with the consequences

What consequences? That people can defend themselves from criminals and enjoy a good day out hunting or sport shooting at the range? I am perfectly prepared to deal with those consequences.
What evidence do you even try to offer? Nothing. Just ifs, maybes, and hypotheticals. I have evidence and science. More guns does not mean more crime, does not mean more murder, does not mean more death. There are no negative consequences to keeping guns legal.

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.

And most importantly, body armor sucks. It stops handgun rounds well, but it's useless against rifle rounds. In the right conditions, even a handgun will go through it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGw_D9KSIok
Take the standard issue cop flak vest, myth-busters shot through it with their very first rifle, which I think was a .22LR I can't for the life of me find a video of it, they were testing a BP vest. Oh well, can't find it. However, many handguns are chambered for .22 magnum, which is nearly identical to the .223 rifle round.

There have been how many school, cinema and other shootings in the US? Now how many shootings can I think of in Australia... umm 1, which caused our strict gun laws and since then there haven't been mass shootings like the states see way too often. I prefer it our way thank you, as long as you keep your guns over there I have no problems but I will never see how people can blindly say that "it safe to allow guns to the average citizen" when its clear thats not the case.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Ledan]

Question though:
Wouldn't the London riots have been way more damaging if the looters and rioters had guns? Even if the non-looters had guns it would have been utter chaos, and a bloodbath.
Similar note, imagine Occupy Wall street movements with guns... better or worse? I'm thinking worse.

Captcha: On a boat... imagine Titanic with more guns?

 

[Tsukuyomi]

This again, huh? I would point out that this kind of argument has been going on for decades and if we haven't reached a consensus so far or even gained some headway, we likely never will. A few points, though, on my end:

1: Yes, I'll agree that from a purely objective standpoint, when someone points a gun at someone else and shoots them, it's nothing personal from the point of the gun. All the gun is doing is reacting to someone pulling the trigger, as it was designed to do. It has no feelings, it is an object. You could argue that knives are a terrible thing because people get stabbed to death, but we still have them in our homes. The same thing applies to them. No matter if you're cutting a loaf of bread or stabbing a man in the gut, to the knife it's nothing personal.

2: That said though, there ARE guns out there that were made FOR THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. If I recall correctly (and someone can correct me obviously if I'm wrong), that was the exact case with the Colt 1911. The American forces were fighting indigenous tribes in the Philippines, I think. However the Filipino warriors were tough to the point that .38 bullets were simply NOT stopping them. As in you would see some with half-healed bullet-wounds still fighting on and walking around, functioning. Sam Colt got a letter asking for a solution and, after much hard work, he finished his solution in 1911, inventing both the .45 ACP round, and the pistol itself.

So yes, while MOST guns may have been crafted to hunt, at least in the early days, there is no denying that since then, particularly in recent times with the clamor for 'more stopping power' and whatnot, there have been guns and ammunition made for people to kill other people. (Fun Fact on that: As I recall the UN has outlawed Full Metal Jacket rounds for it's troops. However in their place is the NATO rounds, which are quite literally tumbling bullets. Instead of expanding like a typical bullet does, when a NATO round strikes an object it literally begins to tumble end over end. Apparently the normal ammunition was deemed 'inhumane'. I don't see how a tumbling bullet ripping up someone's internal organs isn't just as inhumane.)

3: I find it rather ironic when smart, or otherwise enlightened people rally against firearms. The engineering involved in creating firearms, powder, projectiles, making them reliable and improving them to the state that they are now and even working beyond, that requires intelligent people. There is indeed credible science in designing these things, despite the intentions in regards to their use. If guns are stupid and shouldn't be allowed, why do we have presumably very intelligent and very educated people working on designing them and making them more effective? If it's so simple to see that even an idiot can see how bad they are, why is the industry flourishing?

These weapons aren't blameless. They have millions of deaths on them. They are given the title of 'weapon' for a reason. But there must be SOME form of merit to them for them to continue to exist and be allowed for all this time. If otherwise intelligent people who presumably weigh the ramifications of what these weapons cause the world and our species opt to continue their work, then there must be some reason, some undeniable benefit they see in these devices that transcends them beyond the bloodshed they cause.

 

[Scylla6]

Can you show a single instance where that has happened? Here is another incident in Aurora- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/suspect-in-colo-church-sh_n_1450313.html

And here you have, quite accidentally, swung a strong blow for increased gun control, that man was a, and I cannot stress this enough, convicted criminal, who just went out and bought a gun to shoot someone with. Would he have done so without the ability to buy a gun, no questions asked? Perhaps. Would he have been able to kill that woman without the ability to buy a gun? Perhaps again.

But I'll bet it sure as hell would have slowed him down. To be honest, I'm certainly glad that that officer had a gun, he's a trained professional, he's got a license, he's a police officer, he should have a gun. I don't think we can extend that right to every Tom, Dick and Harry, for the singular reason that they do not work in law enforcement, they don't need it.

As such, I'm more than happy for the military, police, and other law enforcement personnel to have guns at home, provided they have a license and have been screened for psychological impairment, they have our trust as it were. If we had officers with guns here in the U.K, where basically no-one uses guns for crime, at least, not at the level of street thugs, we'd see much better results.

The reason being that, whenever one of our British criminals decides to shoot someone, they know the police will find them, their bosses will hang them out to dry, because they don't want to get nailed with the same charges and as such, they think twice before an innocent gets hurt, unlike America, where they know that there's not much chance they'll ever get caught, being as there are so many thugs with guns to check through. That's why you only see nutters and psychopaths committing gun crime here.

 

[TehCookie]

After reading this on The Onion it's the only thing I can think about when talking about gun control.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nra-sets-1000-killed-in-school-shooting-as-amount,28352/

"National Rifle Association Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre said Monday that somewhere around 1,000 kids would have to die in a school shooting in order for the organization to reconsider their longstanding opposition to gun control."
...
"If we're talking about one of those big high schools with 4,000 students then 1,000 dead ones aren't really even a drop in the bucket, you know?" LaPierre said, explaining that if an uzi-carrying 16-year-old only kills 45 percent of a school's total population, the NRA would still be more inclined to blame the shooting on poor parenting, and wouldn't consider soft gun laws to be part of the problem."

 

[spartan231490]

I hear this argument a lot, and it makes no sense at all. You could say the same thing of a bow, but nobody's clamoring to ban bows. That aside, the overwhelming evidence proves you wrong. 1.5 million times each year(conservatively), in the US alone, a gun is used for self defense, the vast majority of the time not killing anyone. On the other hand, including suicides and accidents, only around 30 thousand people die because of firearms. This overwhelmingly shows that guns are used more often to defend people than they are to kill them, so of the two, self-defense is the more common "point" of firearms. Also, there are between 70 and 80 million American's that own firearms, and each of them uses it for something.

1. You are going to need a source on that 1.5 million number. It sounds a bit made up.

2. Still falls into a gun's primary function: to kill. It stopped the crime because the implication is that the person is going to get shot and killed if he does not back off. I've been taught by my gun toting father that, do not pull the firearm out of its holster unless your intend to kill someone with it. Giving an different purpose does not change that.

3. It is not a tool. It is a weapon and nothing else. Can you use a gun to prepare meat? Can you use it to transport things? Does it give you a million other uses besides killing things? No, it does not. For the record, Target practice, silhouette or clay pigeon, is practicing how to kill with the gun. Simply finding an alternate purpose does not change that.

1) I've provided it. In the OP.

2) It's primary purpose is what it is used most for. That is undeniably not murder.

3) Yes, it does.

 

[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.

 

[Hagi]

Here's the thing.

People pro gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does not work.

People anti gun-control have about a dozen studies conclusively 'proving' the 'fact' that gun-control does work.

Why are your 'facts' better than their 'facts'?

because the pro gun facts are true.

Is this sarcasm? Please tell me this is sarcasm.