Question for anti-gun:

[spartan231490]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[A Distant Star]

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

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

 

[WaysideMaze]

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

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

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

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

 

[spartan231490]

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

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

And that's pretty much it.

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

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

There's no logical fallacy.

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

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

That's a pretty solid assumption yes?

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

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

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

 

[spartan231490]

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

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

And that's pretty much it.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bestival]

Can't really comment on the US, although I will say that looking from the outside it all looks very ridiculous.

What I can give you is my own perspective: Living in a rural part of Holland, I, in my 25 years on this clump of dirt, have never heard a gunshot. I've never met anyone who has been mugged. I have never met anyone who has been raped.
I have met 1 person who has been stabbed, this happened while he was working as a security guard and he broke up a fight between some young teens. The kid that stabbed him was instantly horrified by what had happened, fell to the ground sobbing and apologizing. 3 stab wounds to his arm, the guy was back at work a week later. He told me the story himself, finishing with "it was just a dumb kid, he made a mistake, he didn't mean it. I hope he can live with it."


So yeah, to me people that seem to think that without guns a place will fall into chaos and anarchy sound pretty fucking stupid. Different world views I guess.

 

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not totally against gun control, I'm just against gun control that doesn't work. Registration doesn't work, and history has shown that it usually leads to confiscation. Look at California in the '80s when they instituted their assault weapons ban. Registration of those weapons became confiscation in something like 2 years.

The one type of gun control that seems to help, if not much, is background checks. I actually think the system needs to be reformed because it has so many loopholes now, and a rather simple solution could eliminate all of them except the family loophole and street-deals, without registration.

Accidental deaths by gun do not outstrip murder by gun. Murder by gun in the US is around 12 thousand, accidental death is around 700, less than 1/2 of a percent of the deaths caused by accidents in the US. And frankly, gun control doesn't reduce accidental gun death, gun education does. I wouldn't be opposed to mandated gun safety courses either, so long as they are free. They are largely irrelevant to most people who buy guns, but refreshers never hurt.

Legislation doesn't make you responsible, education does.

 

[WanderingFool]

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

Thats my thoughts. Better to have actual gun control laws that making getting guns a bit of a hassle but not impossible, than to make guns illegal and just force people to go underground to get them. Atleast with legal guns, people can be trained to use them and gun ownership information can be tracked.

 

[A Distant Star]

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.

Reasonably sure you could have hit him in a crowded theater through the tear gas? My but you are very confidant in your skills. I'm not exactly unfamiliar with guns, and I have shot many in my day, but given the crowds, the gas and the all around confusion, it's more likely I just would have created a shoot out and probably gotten even more people killed. And that is exactly what all the evidence points at happening is any one pulled a gun on the shooter. It's pointless bravado to insinuate anything different. Given the circumstances it's unlikely a patron of the movie who was a swat sharp shooter could have taken him down had he a gun. That's the sort of thinking that gets people killed in the crossfire.

 

[A Distant Star]

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, you're one of those people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further, China and Japan have extremely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not totally against gun control, I'm just against gun control that doesn't work. Registration doesn't work, and history has shown that it usually leads to confiscation. Look at California in the '80s when they instituted their assault weapons ban. Registration of those weapons became confiscation in something like 2 years.

The one type of gun control that seems to help, if not much, is background checks. I actually think the system needs to be reformed because it has so many loopholes now, and a rather simple solution could eliminate all of them except the family loophole and street-deals, without registration.

Accidental deaths by gun do not outstrip murder by gun. Murder by gun in the US is around 12 thousand, accidental death is around 700, less than 1/2 of a percent of the deaths caused by accidents in the US. And frankly, gun control doesn't reduce accidental gun death, gun education does. I wouldn't be opposed to mandated gun safety courses either, so long as they are free. They are largely irrelevant to most people who buy guns, but refreshers never hurt.

Legislation doesn't make you responsible, education does.

Well at that point then we are talking about the legal differences between Canadian and American gun laws and that is not something I can specifically comment on because I am simply not very familiar with American gun law.

And yes, I agree, the best way to stop accidental gun death is through education. Which is why I propose treating guns like we would a car. Any one who wants to own one needs to go through a training program first. Which I folded into my pro-gun control argument, but I should have made that more specific.

And as for accidental death v. murder, well... we're looking at different numbers, I'm looking at Canadian rates here. As you can see all the links I posted are Canadian, which may make them some what faulty but I argue what I know. I'm also factoring in things like people catching stray bullets as accidental, which also skews my stats away from yours.

 

[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.

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.

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

Horrible study. It was actually talked about in one of my links(this one: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf). They didn't control for the fact that the people they looked at who owned guns were at a higher risk for murder because of other factors, from prior criminal activity to socio-economic factors. Once you control for those factors gun ownership doesn't show any increased relation to homocide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/
Not valid, the US is too radically different from the other countries in terms of both murder and suicide rates. A 14 country data set isn't large enough to offset for the US's massive suicide and murder rates.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.974
Only shows correlation, meaningless since over 60% of people who buy handguns do so for self-defense, usually because they are in more danger than most people. It's common for people with stalkers, or victims of domestic abuse, or people who live in violent neighborhoods. Correlation is never proof of causation, and this study is more suspect than most as it doesn't even attempt to control for these things, nor does it attempt to establish causation. It's meaningless.

Still, good on you, I couldn't find any of them but the first, which I had already been warned about by my harvard source.

As to whether or not this means anything, go look through the links I provided in the OP. Read them. The evidence that stricter gun control doesn't reduce crime rates is very conclusive.

 

[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.

Reasonably sure you could have hit him in a crowded theater through the tear gas? My but you are very confidant in your skills. I'm not exactly unfamiliar with guns, and I have shot many in my day, but given the crowds, the gas and the all around confusion, it's more likely I just would have created a shoot out and probably gotten even more people killed. And that is exactly what all the evidence points at happening is any one pulled a gun on the shooter. It's pointless bravado to insinuate anything different. Given the circumstances it's unlikely a patron of the movie who was a swat sharp shooter could have taken him down had he a gun. That's the sort of thinking that gets people killed in the crossfire.

I have links in my OP pointing out numerous times when armed civilians have stopped a shooting spree. Where is this evidence that suggests pulling a gun on a shooter leads to more death? Please, link it. I'd love to read it.

That said, congratulations, you don't agree with my opinion. You probably don't agree with my opinion on abortion either. I don't care.

 

[Tsaba]

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

he excused their actions with the mistake of one officer. It does not excuse the actions of a bunch of thugs. Fire arms could have solved the problem, they can use less than lethal and non lethal ammunition, you don't have to kill someone with it, most thugs will back down and go home when you instill some fear/discipline/etc (ie. I can get caught and go to prison) in them.

Just in case you missed the initial conversation we where discussing the England riots of 2011.

 

[A Distant Star]

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

This is a much better argument.

Seriously, drop the whole "you can't prove guns make it easier to kill people" angle because it just makes you look stupid, which you obviously aren't. Stick to actual points like these.

And I will just reiterate, I never once said gun control = less crime. Infact I made my position on that very clear. All I said was that gun control = less guns. And that guns are very effective killing tools.

Whether or not gun control would benefit the US's crimerates over all is completely up for debate. It would however directly effect gun crime and gun related deaths. Which is all I've seen anyone say in this thread.

I do personally think less people would die per 100k because of things such as accidental deaths due to cross/miss-fire being effectively eradicated. How this would effect peoples ability to defend themselves? I don't know. It is perfectly possible to defend yourself without a gun, especially if there's less chance of one being pulled on you.

In my opinion this is the core problem with guns in the US. You've essentially got your own localised arms race. With everyone getting the bigger and badder toys so they don't feel powerless.

I'm actually not swayed by this argument, just as there is no evidence to suggest that murder rates go up because of guns there is also none to suggest that owning a gun makes you any safer. My defense of the gun is purely for recreational and sport purposes. In Canada at least banning the gun would be impossible, there are places so remote here that people still need to hunt for there food. Generally those people are Indians and I am pretty quick to point out the blatant imperialism in trying to ban guns in Canada.

 

[RicoADF]

I think the OP is trolling, one moment he's arguing against myself and others that are saying that guns shouldn't be easy to obtain without checks etc, and then a few posts down hes saying hes not against them, just against what he considers pointless ones. Well mate I and sofar no-one I have seen is debating on what type of regulations need to be done, we're all just saying that they do need to be regulated and not simply sold at your local 7 eleven next to the candy stand. Make up your mind, do you believe that they need to be regulated or not? How they should be regulated and to what degree is a different debate.

 

[Hagi]

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

Horrible study. It was actually talked about in one of my links(this one: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf). They didn't control for the fact that the people they looked at who owned guns were at a higher risk for murder because of other factors, from prior criminal activity to socio-economic factors. Once you control for those factors gun ownership doesn't show any increased relation to homocide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/
Not valid, the US is too radically different from the other countries in terms of both murder and suicide rates. A 14 country data set isn't large enough to offset for the US's massive suicide and murder rates.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.974
Only shows correlation, meaningless since over 60% of people who buy handguns do so for self-defense, usually because they are in more danger than most people. It's common for people with stalkers, or victims of domestic abuse, or people who live in violent neighborhoods. Correlation is never proof of causation, and this study is more suspect than most as it doesn't even attempt to control for these things, nor does it attempt to establish causation. It's meaningless.

Still, good on you, I couldn't find any of them but the first, which I had already been warned about by my harvard source.

As to whether or not this means anything, go look through the links I provided in the OP. Read them. The evidence that stricter gun control doesn't reduce crime rates is very conclusive.

I could repeat the same thing again and again that the matter's more complicated than we're currently capable of analysing, there's too many variables involved and there's no way to test things in a controlled environment. All those studies are is educated guesses simply due to the fact that most of the variables involved can't be quantified, let alone measured.

But confirmation bias would ensure you'd likely just ignore it in favour of 'facts' that do support your opinion.

Have fun with it I'd say. I'll just leave you with a quote from good old Socrates:

"The more you know, the more you realize you know nothing."

Your certainty on this issue is more likely an indicator of your lack of knowledge than anything else.

 

[spartan231490]

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

Gun control laws also came into effect in 1901, so you're comparing a time when people may have had basic repeaters or revolvers to a time when people can get a hold of fully automatic pistols and shotguns. And guns weren't that widespread in the UK to begin with.

You're looking at 2 adding it to another 2 and getting 24.

Like Hagi said a page ago. You cannot compare these number across countries because it's just insanely inaccurate. Far too many variable to pick out the effect of just one variable.

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

............ Are you honestly going to try and make the argument that guns don't make it easier to kill people? Really? That's where you're going with this?

Okay, I'll find you a study that proves guns are effective killing instruments when you find me one which finds that playing on the trainlines is a stupid.

These debates always turn into unbelievable pedantry. And it's just sad.

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

But ignoring other variables and claiming that correlation equals causation isn't.

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

This is a much better argument.

Seriously, drop the whole "you can't prove guns make it easier to kill people" angle because it just makes you look stupid, which you obviously aren't. Stick to actual points like these.

And I will just reiterate, I never once said gun control = less crime. Infact I made my position on that very clear. All I said was that gun control = less guns. And that guns are very effective killing tools.

Whether or not gun control would benefit the US's crimerates over all is completely up for debate. It would however directly effect gun crime and gun related deaths. Which is all I've seen anyone say in this thread.

I do personally think less people would die per 100k because of things such as accidental deaths due to cross/miss-fire being effectively eradicated. How this would effect peoples ability to defend themselves? I don't know. It is perfectly possible to defend yourself without a gun, especially if there's less chance of one being pulled on you.

In my opinion this is the core problem with guns in the US. You've essentially got your own localised arms race. With everyone getting the bigger and badder toys so they don't feel powerless.

As I said, look at the justfacts source in the OP. It shows murder rates in UK from sometime in the 60s, not 1901. I can't get the specifics because justfacts seems to be not working right now.

I am making arguments that make sense. Gun control is instituted, murder rates don't decrease, either murderers aren't any less effective, or they try more. Either way, you end up with the same number of people dead. Gun control does not save lives.

I never said correlation equals causation. I am the one arguing that there's no correlation at all, why on earth would I be arguing that correlation equals causation? Further, I'm not ignoring other variables. I am looking at exactly the same place, identical to itself in every way, just examining the before and after of gun control. I suppose, you could say that this place became more or less prosperous over that time period, but I am looking at numerous places: UK, Australia, Detroit, Washington DC, Florida, and I believe Texas. The only one that had it's murder rate decrease after banning guns was Detroit, and it decreased by half the amount that the national rate did(2% vs 4%) All of the others had significant increases. I'm not even arguing that there is a correlation there. I'm arguing that it is pretty damn good evidence against the correlation between the enactment of these laws and reduced murder rates, and it is.

Don't assume "You've essentially got your own localised arms race. With everyone getting the bigger and badder toys so they don't feel powerless." This doesn't happen. We just want the best tool for the jobs we want it to do. That may include self-defense. That doesn't mean we need a bigger gun than the other guy, in fact usually smaller is better for self-defense. And, I've already pointed out that the evidence suggests that either gun control doesn't reduce the effectiveness of murderers, or it causes more of them to start murdering, because of the lack of any appreciable decrease in murder rates after gun control is instituted. Argue with the facts till you're blue in the face, I've made this point 3 times in a row now, I won't be doing it again.

As for accidental deaths, the number of yearly accidental deaths is so small as to be meaningless. 0.5% of accidental deaths are caused by firearms. Accidental drowning kills more people each year, we don't try to ban swimming. Further, a gun ban isn't justified by the numbers, guns are used for legal reasons and self-defense far more than they are used for illegal reasons or killing. If you want to reduce accidental deaths from firearms, increase gun education. Make sport shooting a gym class. Or make using firearms while drunk about a 10 year in prison offense and actually try to enforce it, since the vast majority of accidents involving firearms, especially fatal ones, happen because of the alcohol and human stupidity, not the firearm.

 

[spartan231490]

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

Horrible study. It was actually talked about in one of my links(this one: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf). They didn't control for the fact that the people they looked at who owned guns were at a higher risk for murder because of other factors, from prior criminal activity to socio-economic factors. Once you control for those factors gun ownership doesn't show any increased relation to homocide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/
Not valid, the US is too radically different from the other countries in terms of both murder and suicide rates. A 14 country data set isn't large enough to offset for the US's massive suicide and murder rates.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.974
Only shows correlation, meaningless since over 60% of people who buy handguns do so for self-defense, usually because they are in more danger than most people. It's common for people with stalkers, or victims of domestic abuse, or people who live in violent neighborhoods. Correlation is never proof of causation, and this study is more suspect than most as it doesn't even attempt to control for these things, nor does it attempt to establish causation. It's meaningless.

Still, good on you, I couldn't find any of them but the first, which I had already been warned about by my harvard source.

As to whether or not this means anything, go look through the links I provided in the OP. Read them. The evidence that stricter gun control doesn't reduce crime rates is very conclusive.

I could repeat the same thing again and again that the matter's more complicated than we're currently capable of analysing, there's too many variables involved and there's no way to test things in a controlled environment. All those studies are is educated guesses simply due to the fact that most of the variables involved can't be quantified, let alone measured.

But confirmation bias would ensure you'd likely just ignore it in favour of 'facts' that do support your opinion.

Have fun with it I'd say. I'll just leave you with a quote from good old Socrates:

"The more you know, the more you realize you know nothing."

Your certainty on this issue is more likely an indicator of your lack of knowledge than anything else.

Do you honestly think I will be intimidated by your insults? I started this thread mostly in the hope of seeing legitimate evidence that refuted my side. I've been playing devil's advocate this whole time. My certainty on this issue is an indicator that the evidence supporting the point I'm arguing is far greater than the evidence supporting the other side.

But please, before you go do tell me, what exactly are these variables that are so numerous as to be impossible to account for when you take a place, and compare it to exactly the same place after it instituted a gun control law?

 

[WaysideMaze]

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

he excused their actions with the mistake of one officer. It does not excuse the actions of a bunch of thugs. Fire arms could have solved the problem, they can use less than lethal and non lethal ammunition, you don't have to kill someone with it, most thugs will back down and go home when you instill some fear/discipline/etc (ie. I can get caught and go to prison) in them.

Just in case you missed the initial conversation we where discussing the England riots of 2011.

I saw the conversation. No where in any of his posts did he excuse what happened, he merely stated that the riots kicked off because of a police shooting.

 

[spartan231490]

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

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

And that's pretty much it.

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

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

There's no logical fallacy.

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

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

That's a pretty solid assumption yes?

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

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

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

You have no basis for this assumption apart from the link you talk about. With the UK's murder rates going up after the gun ban.

Totally ignoring the other variables and reasons for this rise in crime or that gun-crime was already ludicrously low in the UK to begin with.

You can't compare apples and oranges. The two situations are miles apart.

I'm not comparing apples to oranges, I'm comparing the UK to the UK. Also, you should be aware, I'm not arguing that their murder rates went up because of their gun control laws. I'm pointing out that their gun control laws did nothing to stop or slow the increase in their murder rate. I'm pointing out that this is evidence, one piece of many, that there is no correlation. I'm not making any assumption, I"m just pointing out the obvious. How are they so different? Really, why can I not compare the UK in the 1960s to the UK in the 1970s? Why? Were you invaded and replaced by pod people with a completely different culture? I admit, my world history is a little lacking, severely lacking in recent times, but I think I would have heard if something had happened to the UK in the 60s that was so massive it made it completely incomparable to itself only a few years before.