Question for anti-gun:

[Scylla6]

Actually, LEOs are very poorly trained when it comes to the use of firearms. On average they have to train around 40 hours at the academy and then take a refresher 2-4 times a year. The refresher is target shooting so easy that I got a 97% on it while using a firearm that I was unfamiliar with and, what I found out later was, I absolutely hated (the course offered to allow us to use their guns and I had never used a Glock before). I have trained more on shotguns (the firearm that I use the least) than your average 20 year vet has trained on all of his firearms combined.

I am a professional marksman. Your average LEO is not.

BTW this Principle managed to stop this attacker before he killed more people. Do you think things would have been better if the police just handled it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

Once again, yes I do think that the police should have handled that, but only because if guns were actually controlled, the 16 year old would have never been able to do this, which I'm sure you'll agree is a good thing. Again, I don't want to get rid of all guns, just stop selling them to any old punter with $300 and a week to wait.

 

[Tsaba]

Murder and non-negligent homicide Austin- 4.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide El Paso- 0.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide Washington D.C.- 21.9

Violent crime Austin- 475.9
Violent crime El Paso- 458.3
Violent crime Washington D.C.- 1,241.1

Population Austin-796,310
Population El Paso- 624,322
Population Washington D.C.- 601,723

Gun ownership rate of the state of Texas- 35.9
Gun ownership rate of Washington D.C.-3.8

Funny story about El Paso, TX.... the violence from Ciudad Juarez tends to bleed over at times... but, yea, very low numbers... just saying they would be lower is all.

 

[SecondPrize]

Those aren't facts and that evidence is not overwhelming.

 

[Hagi]

If it's complicated you can't just say that firearms have nothing to do with it. It being complicated means there's many contributing factors, even if they're not apparent.

The fact that there are many contributing factors does not mean that irrelevant factors can simply be added in.

And you can't say that America's history of little gun-control won't have any effect on the the socio-economic cultural elements of that country. Likewise Europe's stricter gun laws will have some effect on the socio-economic cultural elements of those countries.

And those effects are irrelevant to crime rates. Look, if we look all over the world we find that there is no consistent correlation between guns and crime. People try and just use the US but the US has special circumstances. As do all nations. If guns are relevant then there should be a lot of evidence for it. Instead the numbers are all over the board which implies that if there is a correlation then it is effectively irrelevant (like the gravitational force between me and my computer).

Serbia has a murder rate of 2.2 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 58.2 per 100 while Lithuania has a murder rate of 5.6 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 0.7 per 100.

Norway has a murder rate of 0.7 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 31.3 per 100 while the UK has a murder rate of 1.2 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 6.7 per 100.

Yemen has a murder rate of 4.0 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 54.8 per 100 while Jamaica has a murder rate of 39.0 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 8.1 per 100.

Iceland has a murder rate of 0.3 per 100k and a gun ownership rate of 30.3 per 100 while Denmark has a murder rate of 1.0 per 100K and a gun ownership rate of 12.0 per 100.

Murder and non-negligent homicide Austin- 4.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide El Paso- 0.8
Murder and non-negligent homicide Washington D.C.- 21.9

Violent crime Austin- 475.9
Violent crime El Paso- 458.3
Violent crime Washington D.C.- 1,241.1

Population Austin-796,310
Population El Paso- 624,322
Population Washington D.C.- 601,723

Gun ownership rate of the state of Texas- 35.9
Gun ownership rate of Washington D.C.-3.8

You can't just do a univariate analysis like that unless it's in a controlled environment...

It requires a multivariate analysis with many, many, many variables.

You're working under the assumption here that all factors involved are completely independent of each other and there is no interaction between them, for which you've absolutely no proof.

There could easily be variables which interact with gun-ownership to reduce or nullify whatever effects it has. This does not make gun-ownership an irrelevant variable, on the contrary.

There could easily be variables which interact with gun-ownership to increase whatever effects it has. This also does not make gun-ownership an irrelevant variable.

There's dozens more possibilities in which gun-ownership could interact with all sorts of variables, have a significant effect and still produce those numbers you listed.

It's also entirely possible that you're right and gun-ownership is indeed an irrelevant variable.

But without data we currently have absolutely no means of obtaining and analysis we currently have no way of performing there's no conclusive proof to be found in matter concerning human behaviour on this scale.

It only shows ignorance to claim otherwise.

 

[Kragg]

Common sense says that the world is flat, that doesn't mean it's correct. All the evidence supports the assertion that gun control doesn't reduce crime. The murder rate in the UK has been steadily rising for 40 years despite more and more stringent gun control, nothing has curbed the increase.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/murder-rate-falls-crime-figures

murder rate has dropped actually and that biased study you linked in the OP was from the 90s, when drugcrime actually went up

im not even gonna start talking about the fact that murderrate is so low that there is no comparing the 2

and for gunsmith guy

murders in texas in 2010 : 1246 on pop of 25,674,681
murders in UK in 2011 : 648 on pop of 62,641,000

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/2011/07/14/murders-2011-british-murders-homicides-and-fatal-violence-mapped/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

there is no reasoning with you two

 

[CdnDemoniac]

A gun thread that hasn't broken down into yelling at each other? I'm in. I suggest everyone read this editorial on pro-gun rhetoric as I think it will do everyone a bit of good, although I do admit that everyone in this thread seem to be doing an infinitely better job of having a decent conversation about gun laws, I still think it is important to read.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/

IMO the essence of the problem is that there are TOO MANY guns in the country (from my observations as a Canadian) and that of course gun laws will not affect much from the get go due to the fact that guns have been incredibly easy to access for decades and have been saturated through the American population, both criminal and legitimate citizens. But the fact of the matter is that by not attempting to do *anything* about the problem, no solution will ever be found and mass shootings like the one in Colorado will continue to happen, and gun violence will never be quelled. The United States has an insanely high gun violence rate even when you take into consideration its high population, so there clearly is a problem that needs to be addressed.

And to address the point about criminals disregarding any future gun laws, the point isn't that the gun laws will deter criminals, the point is that gun laws will make access to guns even more difficult thereby reducing the amount of firearms in a region which would lead to lower gun crime. The black market can only do so much to supply criminals, but by making it insanely easy for literally anyone to get a gun, criminals have to jump through a lot fewer hoops in order to abuse firearms. Anyhow, that's my two cents.

 

[Kragg]

You can't just do a univariate analysis like that unless it's in a controlled environment...

It requires a multivariate analysis with many, many, many variables.

You're working under the assumption here that all factors involved are completely independent of each other and there is no interaction between them, for which you've absolutely no proof.

There could easily be variables which interact with gun-ownership to reduce or nullify whatever effects it has. This does not make gun-ownership an irrelevant variable, on the contrary.

There could easily be variables which interact with gun-ownership to increase whatever effects it has. This also does not make gun-ownership an irrelevant variable.

There's dozens more possibilities in which gun-ownership could interact with all sorts of variables, have a significant effect and still produce those numbers you listed.

It's also entirely possible that you're right and gun-ownership is indeed an irrelevant variable.

But without data we currently have absolutely no means of obtaining and analysis we currently have no way of performing there's no conclusive proof to be found in matter concerning human behaviour on this scale.

It only shows ignorance to claim otherwise.

agreed and that frustrates me most, there is no way to properly talk about this yet still people try to force their opinion as fact with some inconclusive "proof"

that said, i'm out of this topic, have fun

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[spartan231490]

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'?

What studies? Show me one. I couldn't find any, and I spent 2 or 3 hours looking. I found dozens of studies showing conclusively no relation between increased gun control and lower gun crime, I couldn't find a single one that showed that increased gun control reduced crime.
Show me one.

Just look through all the gun-control thread already here, plenty of posters putting up decent arguments for either side.

There's also this very human tendency of confirmation bias.
snip

I did look, there isn't any evidence. If you think there is, link it to me, otherwise I will have to assume you don't have any.

 

[Tsaba]

Common sense says that the world is flat, that doesn't mean it's correct. All the evidence supports the assertion that gun control doesn't reduce crime. The murder rate in the UK has been steadily rising for 40 years despite more and more stringent gun control, nothing has curbed the increase.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/murder-rate-falls-crime-figures

murder rate has dropped actually and that biased study you linked in the OP was from the 90s, when drugcrime actually went up

im not even gonna start talking about the fact that murderrate is so low that there is no comparing the 2

and for gunsmith guy

murders in texas in 2010 : 1246 on pop of 25,674,681
murders in UK in 2011 : 648 on pop of 62,641,000

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/2011/07/14/murders-2011-british-murders-homicides-and-fatal-violence-mapped/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

there is no reasoning with you two

Texas shares the border with Mexico which is in the midst of a drug war that tends to spill over onto US soil. The fact that the numbers stay as low as they do in Texas is amazing to say the least.

 

[RicoADF]

*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.

 

[spartan231490]

Common sense says that the world is flat, that doesn't mean it's correct. All the evidence supports the assertion that gun control doesn't reduce crime. The murder rate in the UK has been steadily rising for 40 years despite more and more stringent gun control, nothing has curbed the increase.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/murder-rate-falls-crime-figures

murder rate has dropped actually and that biased study you linked in the OP was from the 90s, when drugcrime actually went up

im not even gonna start talking about the fact that murderrate is so low that there is no comparing the 2

and for gunsmith guy

murders in texas in 2010 : 1246 on pop of 25,674,681
murders in UK in 2011 : 648 on pop of 62,641,000

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/2011/07/14/murders-2011-british-murders-homicides-and-fatal-violence-mapped/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

there is no reasoning with you two

Yes, your murder rate fell in recent years, but before that, it's been skyrocketing. I linked a page(the truefacts page) that has the reported murder rate as reported by UK police officers, it's been skyrocketing since the 60s, only started to go down the last couple of years, long long after the gun bans had been put into effect.

Congratulations, the UK has a lower murder rate than the US. It has nothing to do with guns, the UK murder rate was lower than the US murder rate way back before repeating rifles when gun laws were virtually the same everywhere. Switzerland has almost as many guns as the US and their crime is so low they don't even keep statistics. It's a culture thing. Go look at my truefacts link in the OP. It's not biased, it's a quality controlled source site.

As to the bias of the link I posted, the head researcher was originally a pro-gun control researcher, but he changed his opinion upon seeing the data.

That isn't evidence, it's not a study, they are facts that can't be used to draw a conclusion until the are put into context.

Show me a study.

 

[teknoarcanist]

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.

 

[ElPatron]

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.

I don't think it's weird that America has the greatest incarceration percentage of the world

Let's not compare penal systems. In Portugal there are rapists and child molesters walking away because we think that Probation will just change the way their brains work.

Trying to bring the penal system into this is just pouring liquid oxygen on the fire.

 

[BeanDelphiki]

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.

 

[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'?

What studies? Show me one. I couldn't find any, and I spent 2 or 3 hours looking. I found dozens of studies showing conclusively no relation between increased gun control and lower gun crime, I couldn't find a single one that showed that increased gun control reduced crime.
Show me one.

Just look through all the gun-control thread already here, plenty of posters putting up decent arguments for either side.

There's also this very human tendency of confirmation bias.
snip

I did look, there isn't any evidence. If you think there is, link it to me, otherwise I will have to assume you don't have any.

One google search later...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.974

And yes, you can easily point out many flaws with these studies. That's my entire point. Just because there's a study about it, either in favour or against, doesn't automatically make it a fact that gun-control either works or does not.

We simply do not have all the information required nor the means to obtain it to come to any substantiated conclusion on this matter. There are so many variables involved and there's no way to conduct any relevant experiments in controlled environments that the best we can do is educated guesses. These are better than nothing but guesses all the same.

None of these studies, either in favour or against, provide any conclusive evidence on the matter.

 

[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.