Question for anti-gun:

[Royas]

The argument is irrelevant anyway. The government literally can not take away or control guns in the USA. Not because the constitution guarantees the right to own firearms, but for logistical reasons. The government doesn't have the resources to get the guns from their citizens, period.

As of 2007, there were about 90 guns for every 100 people in the USA. At a current population of 300 million plus, that's over 250 million firearms. There isn't enough money or manpower to gather than much hardware up and destroy it, especially when I can guarantee that a good percentage of those guns are going to be in the hands of people unwilling to give them up. In other words, people more than happy to return fire. If there was even a serious effort to get rid of the guns in this country, the death toll would be staggering, both on the civilian and the police side of the line.

This is a case of the genie already being out of the bottle. Make high capacity magazines illegal? Didn't do much before, won't do much now, there are too many out there already (I alone have 10 or more magazines with more than a 10 round capacity, and I'm not even a serious collector). Make semi-automatic rifles illegal? Didn't work before, won't do much now, too many SKS, AK style, AR-15 style and other types in the field already. Guns are here, they are here to stay, and that's not going to change for the foreseeable future.

 

[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.

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.

But your examples where all circumstantial, and do not say anything about over all trends.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12967022

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1990.tb00329.x/abstract

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/03/29/health/math-and-myth-of-guns-and-safety/

http://ohhshoot.blogspot.ca/ (while this blog is also circumstantial and of limited use because of it, it highlights the point.)


Oh and while we are on the topic of accidental gun violence...

http://www.worldcat.org/title/how-well-does-the-handgun-protect-you-and-your-family-technical-report-2/oclc/4769322855?referer=one_hit

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8637171

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144625

 

[Tsaba]

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.

..... then why point it out and argue the fact. There would be no point, but, to use it for a basis in a discussion.

 

[Hagi]

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?

Please do quantify for me:

- Culture as related to firearms.
- Fear of violent crime.
- Ease of obtaining a firearm.
- Opinion on firearms.
- Peer pressure on the subject of firearms.
- Local opinion on ownership of firearms.
- Upbringing as related to firearms.

To give but a few examples. And each of these need to be split up in multiple variables due to their multidimensional nature.

All of these, and many more, could interact with gun-control laws and their effect on homicides and crime. Without accounting for these, and more, it's impossible to say whether gun-control laws really have no correlation with violent crime or if that's merely the result of interaction with an unknown variable that wasn't accounted for.

 

[WaysideMaze]

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.

..... then why point it out and argue the fact. There would be no point, but, to use it for a basis in a discussion.

You said guns would have solved the problem. His counter was that guns are what caused the problem, and therefore, without guns there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

that was what I took away from his posts anyway.

 

[spartan231490]

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?

Please do quantify for me:

- Culture as related to firearms.
- Fear of violent crime.
- Ease of obtaining a firearm.
- Opinion on firearms.
- Peer pressure on the subject of firearms.
- Local opinion on ownership of firearms.
- Upbringing as related to firearms.

To give but a few examples. And each of these need to be split up in multiple variables due to their multidimensional nature.

All of these, and many more, could interact with gun-control laws and their effect on homicides and crime. Without accounting for these, and more, it's impossible to say whether gun-control laws really have no correlation with violent crime or if that's merely the result of interaction with an unknown variable that wasn't accounted for.

How are 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, or 7 any different at the exact same place within just a few years of each other?

 

[Hagi]

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?

Please do quantify for me:

- Culture as related to firearms.
- Fear of violent crime.
- Ease of obtaining a firearm.
- Opinion on firearms.
- Peer pressure on the subject of firearms.
- Local opinion on ownership of firearms.
- Upbringing as related to firearms.

To give but a few examples. And each of these need to be split up in multiple variables due to their multidimensional nature.

All of these, and many more, could interact with gun-control laws and their effect on homicides and crime. Without accounting for these, and more, it's impossible to say whether gun-control laws really have no correlation with violent crime or if that's merely the result of interaction with an unknown variable that wasn't accounted for.

How are 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, or 7 any different at the exact same place within just a few years of each other?

I don't know.

Do you know?

Can you conclusively prove that any of them haven't changed at all in the slightest?

 

[Aldain]

Another movie myth, there. It's easy to stop someone with a knife? Have you tried? Now, I'm not debating that guns are more effective and efficient -- that's why they were invented -- but don't trivialize knife violence, either. Talk to any folks that teach practical close-quarters combat (particularly with the military), and you'll likely hear them tell you that rule 1 in a knife fight is "You WILL get cut."

Arms length? The trainer that gave me defence against knifes showed that its almost impossible to defend against someone that suddenly charges towards you with a knife from ~10 meters away. (Almost impossible if you need to draw a gun).

OT:
The OP claims to have "facts" to back up his story. After checking out his sources I came to the conclusion he has not really any good sources. All his sources are from anti gun control organisations and not from any objective scientific sources. Which makes his sources unreliable and so I wont respond to any arguments that these sources back up.

As for the "guns dont kill people, people kill people" I have to respond with the quote of Eddie Izzard: "But guns help, not a lot of people would die if you just shout 'BANG'".

In my opinion it would be a lot harder to stab 77 people to death in a movie theater then it would be to just shoot them. If I could choose between a society without guns or with guns I believe one without is way saver then one with guns.

 

[spartan231490]

I have listed half a dozen primary sources that all agree

More propaganda bullshit, is still propaganda bullshit.

and can't find a single piece of scientific evidence that refutes it.

How about crime statistics for every comparable country? The US violent crime rate is comparable to those of former soviet republicans and conflict zones.

This comes from refutegunfreaks.txt, since I have to copypasta this so often for NRA trolls.

A study which proves that the spread of legal firearms in the US contributed vastly to the rise in the crime rate:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/cjrr4&div=6&id=&page=

And another study that links firearms to crime rate:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277953698000975?via=sd

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967.pdf?new_window=1
Note how this study is even from the US, a country already stuffed with guns everywhere. That you can still find that fewer firearms means less crime in such a place is very signifcant.

Yeah, cuz the nut in that Norweigen shooter was legally allowed to buy that gun, oh wait, those guns are banned in that country.

Notice how it was Norway's first random shooting ever, and the US has one about monthly.

If you had bothered to look at my links, you would see that they are about as unbiased as you can get on this topic, not propaganda in any way.

UK violent crime rate far higher than US, despite far stricter gun laws. Switzerland violent crime rates are far far lower than US, despite having less strict gun laws than most states.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/cjrr4&div=6&id=&page=
Ridiculously outdated, this is from the '80s. Even if it wasn't, it's just an abstract, and a poorly written abstract at that considering it tells you nothing about the method or data.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277953698000975?via=sd
This links poverty to crime rate. Access to firearms was one of the control variables for fuck's sake.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967.pdf?new_window=1
He estimates gun ownership by the number of guns bought out of one specific gun magazine? The vast majority of firearms are bought from retail outlets because the most important aspect of buying a gun is the feel of the gun. I don't know a single individual who has purchased a firearm from a non-retail source.
Furthermore, his findings run directly counter to national findings that show gun ownership in the US has been rising dramatically during the same period(since 1992) that violent crime rates and murder rates have been dramatically decreasing in the US. Still, this is the best study I've seen for this argument, I'll need to take a look at it in greater detail when I have the time. See if I can find any peer reactions to this study.

Certainly the best evidence I've ever seen to support this. Not very reliable though, it uses a completely untested, and extremely limited variable to measure firearm ownership.

 

[A Distant Star]

Yeah, cuz the nut in that Norweigen shooter was legally allowed to buy that gun, oh wait, those guns are banned in that country.

Actually, guns are not banned in Norway.

 

[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.

But your examples where all circumstantial, and do not say anything about over all trends.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12967022

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1990.tb00329.x/abstract

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/03/29/health/math-and-myth-of-guns-and-safety/

http://ohhshoot.blogspot.ca/ (while this blog is also circumstantial and of limited use because of it, it highlights the point.)


Oh and while we are on the topic of accidental gun violence...

http://www.worldcat.org/title/how-well-does-the-handgun-protect-you-and-your-family-technical-report-2/oclc/4769322855?referer=one_hit

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8637171

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144625

Actually, my data on murder rates said everything about over-all trends. Mass shootings are negligible and have no impact on the overall trends. I wasn't trying to prove a trend with those links because I'd already established evidence of overall trends with my larger argument. I was pointing out that it's perfectly possible for an armed citizen to stop a crazed shooter.

I looked through your links, but I'm not going to go through them all in detail, suffice it to say that the one study was a horrifically small and biased sample size, and that if the other was true, it would show that even the lowest estimate that I could find for yearly self defense situations would have to be an over-estimation by 100,000%, and considering the relative sample sizes of the two studies, yours is not the one that wins out on my credibility scale.

 

[spartan231490]

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?

Please do quantify for me:

- Culture as related to firearms.
- Fear of violent crime.
- Ease of obtaining a firearm.
- Opinion on firearms.
- Peer pressure on the subject of firearms.
- Local opinion on ownership of firearms.
- Upbringing as related to firearms.

To give but a few examples. And each of these need to be split up in multiple variables due to their multidimensional nature.

All of these, and many more, could interact with gun-control laws and their effect on homicides and crime. Without accounting for these, and more, it's impossible to say whether gun-control laws really have no correlation with violent crime or if that's merely the result of interaction with an unknown variable that wasn't accounted for.

How are 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, or 7 any different at the exact same place within just a few years of each other?

I don't know.

Do you know?

Can you conclusively prove that any of them haven't changed at all in the slightest?

You do realize that your train of thought invalidates all of psychology and the social sciences, don't you? Their methods are, by necessity, far less exacting than the studies I am talking about.

 

[spartan231490]

Yeah, cuz the nut in that Norweigen shooter was legally allowed to buy that gun, oh wait, those guns are banned in that country.

Actually, guns are not banned in Norway.

The type of gun he used was.

 

[Hagi]

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?

Please do quantify for me:

- Culture as related to firearms.
- Fear of violent crime.
- Ease of obtaining a firearm.
- Opinion on firearms.
- Peer pressure on the subject of firearms.
- Local opinion on ownership of firearms.
- Upbringing as related to firearms.

To give but a few examples. And each of these need to be split up in multiple variables due to their multidimensional nature.

All of these, and many more, could interact with gun-control laws and their effect on homicides and crime. Without accounting for these, and more, it's impossible to say whether gun-control laws really have no correlation with violent crime or if that's merely the result of interaction with an unknown variable that wasn't accounted for.

How are 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, or 7 any different at the exact same place within just a few years of each other?

I don't know.

Do you know?

Can you conclusively prove that any of them haven't changed at all in the slightest?

You do realize that your train of thought invalidates all of psychology and the social sciences, don't you? Their methods are, by necessity, far less exacting than the studies I am talking about.

It does not invalidate them.

It does however mean that any results gained from them are not certainties.

Just look at the history of those sciences, they're full of radical changes in the way we see the human mind and the societies we live in.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

Then it's irrelevant because there has been strict gun control in the UK since 1901. Which got bolstered in 1920 as a reactionary measure to the surplus guns from WWI.

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.

Except that gun crime makes a large percentage of the murders in the US whilst it made up a strikingly small percentage in the UK.

Again, apples and oranges.

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?

The correlation between gun control and an increase in crime. You're saying that crime went up in the UK therefore it is foolish to say it could go down in the US.

This ignores the reasons why it went up in the UK.

Further, I'm not ignoring other variables.

Yes you are.

The only variable you've mentioned is new legislation of gun control. You're ignoring the rest by omitting them.

I am looking at exactly the same place, identical to itself in every way, just examining the before and after of gun control.

Ignoring the fact that gun control wasn't the only change and that it was an extremely minor change to being with. Considering there had been very strict gun control since the 20's.

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.

Except that what happened in one place isn't good evidence for what could happen in another. Especially when you're only considering one variable.

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.

The bigger and badder part wasn't meant to be taken literally.

And what you've done is said the same thing 3 times and ignored peoples response to it.

The gun control laws in the UK that I am talking about were instituted in 1968(gun control law) and 1997(handgun ban). I have no idea what laws you are talking about, but the one instituted in 1968 wasn't even that strict, so I strongly doubt that the UK had strict gun control since 1901.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

YOU are the one comparing the US to the UK. I am comparing the UK to the UK.

No, I am not ignoring the reason that it went up in the UK. I am saying that, regardless of the reason they went up, gun control didn't help, so there is no reason to assume it would work in the US because of this.

I'm not ignoring the other variables, I don't know how I can say this any way I haven't already.

There you go again, claiming that the UK has had strict gun control since the early 1900s, when they didn't. They had gun control, it was strict for the time, but overall until 1997 they had gun control laws comparable to what many states have now in the US. Ergo, the 1997 law is the one that had a significant impact, and it once again saw no impact on the increase of murder rates.

Again, I've said this about half a dozen times, I'm not basing my argument on just one place. The statistics in the US bear out the same thing.

I'm not ignoring what you say, I'm just pointing out that it has no impact on the data. You are putting a lot of words in my mouth that just aren't there.

 

[Tsaba]

You said guns would have solved the problem. His counter was that guns are what caused the problem, and therefore, without guns there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

that was what I took away from his posts anyway.

They would of done the same thing had he been hit by a police car, face caved in by a billy club, fist, etc.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm not comparing apples to oranges, I'm comparing the UK to the UK.

I was more on about you insinuating that because of what happened in the UK it's evidence that it would happen in the US.

They're two completely different situations.

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.

But guns were never a major factor in UK murders to begin with. There had already been strict gun control laws since 1901 and they got beefed up in the 20's.

The 60's I believe was about carrying handguns.

Apples and oranges.

I'm pointing out that this is evidence, one piece of many, that there is no correlation.

It's not because it's a completely different situation. Gun crime makes up a massive percent of crime in the US. If guns were to suddenly vanish of course this would impact that. Guns were never a large part of crime in the UK.

Cultural differences.

I'm not making any assumption, I"m just pointing out the obvious.

Actually you're dancing around it.

How are they so different? Really, why can I not compare the UK in the 1960s to the UK in the 1970s?

Not the comparison I was talking about and there was a lot of socio-economic change during that decade.

Why? Were you invaded and replaced by pod people with a completely different culture?

No but our culture was influenced by a lot of different variables.

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.

Crime rates rise and fall. This isn't the issue.

The issue is that you're using what happened in the UK as rational as to why it would likely happen in the US. Or as evidence of why the opposite wouldn't happen.

They're two completely different situations.

I can only beat a dead horse so many times. you are putting a whole lot of words in my mouth that don't belong there.

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.

Then it's irrelevant because there has been strict gun control in the UK since 1901. Which got bolstered in 1920 as a reactionary measure to the surplus guns from WWI.

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.

Except that gun crime makes a large percentage of the murders in the US whilst it made up a strikingly small percentage in the UK.

Again, apples and oranges.

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?

The correlation between gun control and an increase in crime. You're saying that crime went up in the UK therefore it is foolish to say it could go down in the US.

This ignores the reasons why it went up in the UK.

Further, I'm not ignoring other variables.

Yes you are.

The only variable you've mentioned is new legislation of gun control. You're ignoring the rest by omitting them.

I am looking at exactly the same place, identical to itself in every way, just examining the before and after of gun control.

Ignoring the fact that gun control wasn't the only change and that it was an extremely minor change to being with. Considering there had been very strict gun control since the 20's.

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.

Except that what happened in one place isn't good evidence for what could happen in another. Especially when you're only considering one variable.

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.

The bigger and badder part wasn't meant to be taken literally.

And what you've done is said the same thing 3 times and ignored peoples response to it.

The gun control laws in the UK that I am talking about were instituted in 1968(gun control law) and 1997(handgun ban). I have no idea what laws you are talking about, but the one instituted in 1968 wasn't even that strict, so I strongly doubt that the UK had strict gun control since 1901.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

YOU are the one comparing the US to the UK. I am comparing the UK to the UK.

No, I am not ignoring the reason that it went up in the UK. I am saying that, regardless of the reason they went up, gun control didn't help, so there is no reason to assume it would work in the US because of this.

I'm not ignoring the other variables, I don't know how I can say this any way I haven't already.

There you go again, claiming that the UK has had strict gun control since the early 1900s, when they didn't. They had gun control, it was strict for the time, but overall until 1997 they had gun control laws comparable to what many states have now in the US. Ergo, the 1997 law is the one that had a significant impact, and it once again saw no impact on the increase of murder rates.

Again, I've said this about half a dozen times, I'm not basing my argument on just one place. The statistics in the US bear out the same thing.

I'm not ignoring what you say, I'm just pointing out that it has no impact on the data. You are putting a lot of words in my mouth that just aren't there.

 

[crazyarms33]

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

Yes, because taking an accurate aimed shot with a revolver whilst under assault rifle fire is super easy to do and a very calm and relaxing time in one's life. I myself find it a great stress reliever and enthusiastically recommend it to everyone I come across.

OT: Guns are designed to kill people/animals. This is a fact. People use these guns. This is a fact. 99% of gun owners do not kill people. This is also a fact. I myself own 3 guns and use them all regularly. Am I against gun control? Yes and no. I think there is no reason for a person to be able to go out and buy a machine gun just because they can. I do think that rifles and shotguns and handguns should be allowed pretty much across the board, but no handguns with a magazine that exceeds 17 rounds, plus the chambered round.

 

[gwilym101]

I'm not against the idea of people being allowed to own guns, but I think it is too easy to buy a gun in America, particularly ones that are inordinate in what a person would need for home or self defence (what possible reason would you need an AK-47 to defend yourself with, or a grenade launcher).

If a person wants to buy any gun they should be trained, tested and have full background checks (yes I know some guns you do need licences and such). Especially since the main amendment that advocates the ownership of guns actually says "A well regulated militia".

 

[RN7]

I feel that if a gun control law were implemented, it would be a good thing because people outside of law enforcement wouldn't be able to access guns. Granted, people could still get them illegally, and you couldn't really take away other peoples' guns, even if you did something drastic, such as...you know...repeal the 2nd amendment.

I'd really only be angered by the law is if it showed little improvement in crime rates dropping, because it would mean I'd have to resort to using a metal bat or large piece of wood to maim or otherwise seriously injure someone who broke into my house.