Bingo here.Eclpsedragon said:It doesn't matter if I'm pro-gun or anti-gun, my opinion on all Cracked articles is the same, although they can be entertaining or thought provoking, I would never take one seriously, or by extension, the points within.
AH-UH-AH! http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/befolkning_en/ Here's some stats for Norway currently. And then http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html for the United States.Naeras said:Up here in Norway, one of the political parties recently tried to get a debate going about whether or not the police should carry guns with them at all times. The debate stopped dead when the police said that they wouldn't actually want to carry guns. Keep in mind that this was only a few months after an heavily right-wing extremist killed 77 people(most of which were teenagers).The_Critic said:The criminal element will always get a hold of guns. Go to Japan, police don't have guns, citizens don't have guns, but i bet you dollars to Doughnuts you'll be hard pressed to find a yakuza member without one.
How bout England, do you think the criminal elements there don't have guns? You think they run around with billy clubs committing crimes and holding up convenience stores?
Anti gun rights people may be coming from a good place, I doubt they see it as limiting are freedom but Helping the community. However it doesn't, it just guarantee's that no citizen will ever squash a crime or protect their family from a criminal who has a gun.
Also a militia is important for the defense of a country. Just saying.
Miraculously, we still have fewer deaths, and crimes, per capita than the US has. And that goes for every other country you listed there, as far as I know.
With that being said, I don't believe gun regulations are a core factor of the crime rates: you don't need to look further than Canada for that. At the same time, I still think the US gun regulations are dumb, and that having them tighter would prevent accidental injuries and deaths. I also have no reason to believe that carrying a gun would help you against an armed robber in most cases, unless you're constantly carrying an armed firearm [http://i.imgur.com/pDHHz.jpg].
I'm currently looking for other sources for the population of Norway that is more up-to-date but if what it is saying is true, Norway only [or over] five million people within its borders, while the US has over 314 million. The US, by default is going to have more crime because it has more people.
I am by no means sticking by anything but the POPclock numbers for the US since that other site might not be correct, but if it isn't, you have less crime not because there are less people with guns, but because your population is a lot smaller.
In conclusion, the argument "My country has less crime because we don't have guns, thus if the US didn't have guns they would have less crime" is that most people don't think about how big the US is, why guns are allowed in the US since its inception and don't often look at numbers relating to things like knife murders or blunt weapon murders, just guns.
You could but it would be harder. You could, in theory, go around mass murdering people with a pointy metal stick if you landed hits in the right places.Bhaalspawn said:"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Yes, but you cannot commit mass murder with a chinese throwing star.
Removing guns from the equation does what exactly when it comes to slaughtering people? Makes it slightly more inconvenient?
Knights way back when had no issues slaughtering hundreds of other knights, and this was before the advent of guns, so how would removing a gun stop people from slaughtering hundreds of other people.
__________________________
With me, the most pointless argument against guns is that banning them will do anything but remove a shield from a citizen versus the sword of a criminal.
Well, and the fact that in the US were allowed to carry guns so that, in case a revolution is needed we can HAVE a chance to change the government back to serving the common man rather then the richest man.
Also, what I said above, anyone who uses the argument "well my country has less crime because of no guns therefore if the US has no guns their crime rate would drop" without ever looking at the differences in population, beliefs, the fact that removing guns does not suddenly mean less murders happen or that there are less people with guns.
In conclusion, most people [like the above] who argue without addressing things like population, the ideology of guns in the country their arguing shouldn't have guns, the fact that murders are declined because of a ban on guns but more weapons are used are reasons why I think its not sensible to outright ban guns.