EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Benjamin99
4176 Posts
| ||
|
Eps
Canada240 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:32 Hypemeup wrote: And as stated before, a much lower rate of gun related violence. The requirements for having a gun here are pretty steep. Gun ownership per capita United States 88.8 Rank - 1 Sweden 31.6 Rank - 10 Canada 30.8 Rank - 13 We're not far behind from you guys. But our gun violence rates are relatively low. Of course, essentially most nations in the global north have low rates of gun violence compared to the US. Homicide Rates United States 4.2 Total - 12,996 Canada 1.6 Total - 554 Sweden 1.0 Total - 91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:24 BluePanther wrote: While Sweden has a solid record of preventing violence, you guys are 10th in terms of ownership/population of guns in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country Also maybe the kind of guns plays the role. I would expect most guns in Sweden to be hunting rifles or other guns with similar purpose ? | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:33 mcc wrote: But you are, and I am much safer statistically without a gun than you with one. And that is my point. In no system are you guaranteed safety. But in some you are guaranteed high probability of such. Incidentally those systems do not involve so many guns. just chiming in on the conversation guns arent for everyone. a person who has no training with guns, does not feel comfortable with one, should not have one. that also applies to those who are irresponsible, like having a gun unlocked in the house when there are kids around. | ||
|
Hypemeup
Sweden2783 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:37 Eps wrote: Gun ownership per capita United States 88.8 Rank - 1 Sweden 31.6 Rank - 10 Canada 30.8 Rank - 13 We're not far behind from you guys. But our gun violence rates are relatively low. Of course, essentially most nations in the global north have low rates of gun violence compared to the US. Homicide Rates United States 4.2 Total - 12,996 Canada 1.6 Total - 554 Sweden 1.0 Total - 91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate 4 times as much is pretty far behind. Also that list does not even adress gun related homocides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate I do not know why Sweden is is lacking an answer there. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
At first it might make sense, hey they used guns to kill, guns are dangerous, ban them etc. Just look at all the facts available to you on the internet from reputable sources. This is where personal beliefs might not equal reality. So before you go calling for a gun ban, read up on the facts of gun control efficacy. CT has had an assault weapon ban in place since 1994, it did nothing to stop this. NYC has a complete gun ban, so do many other crime ridden areas. Gun crime rises when there are gun bans in place. Again, the internet is your friend here--use it. Furthermore, I'd like to ask the gun control folks, who obviously haven't been exposed to the facts regarding gun control, what other constitutional amendments they aren't in favor of. There is a certain ignorance to following the constitution only as how you see fit. | ||
|
Benjamin99
4176 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:37 Eps wrote: Gun ownership per capita United States 88.8 Rank - 1 Sweden 31.6 Rank - 10 Canada 30.8 Rank - 13 We're not far behind from you guys. But our gun violence rates are relatively low. Of course, essentially most nations in the global north have low rates of gun violence compared to the US. Homicide Rates United States 4.2 Total - 12,996 Canada 1.6 Total - 554 Sweden 1.0 Total - 91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Look at these numbers insane and some people actually argue against banning firearms. insane | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:33 mcc wrote: But you are, and I am much safer statistically without a gun than you with one. And that is my point. In no system are you guaranteed safety. But in some you are guaranteed high probability of such. Incidentally those systems do not involve so many guns. Gun ownership doesn't automatically correlate with high gun crime. I doubt the statistics for violent crime would change much for the better even if there were a magic no-gun button. Maybe there'd be less deaths, but there'd still be similar numbers of victims. If I can reduce my chances of being a victim in the system I live in, I'm going to. | ||
|
Benjamin99
4176 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:39 Nagano wrote: At these times, it's important that you remember to use facts to back up your claim. Gun control laws DO. NOT. WORK. PERIOD. At first it might make sense, hey they used guns to kill, guns are dangerous, ban them etc. Just look at all the facts available to you on the internet from reputable sources. This is where personal beliefs might not equal reality. So before you go calling for a gun ban, read up on the facts of gun control efficacy. CT has had an assault weapon ban in place since 1994, it did nothing to stop this. NYC has a complete gun ban, so do many other crime ridden areas. Gun crime rises when there are gun bans in place. Again, the internet is your friend here--use it. Furthermore, I'd like to ask the gun control folks, who obviously haven't been exposed to the facts regarding gun control, what other constitutional amendments they aren't in favor of. There is a certain ignorance to following the constitution only as how you see fit. look at the numbers below you they work. We have never had a school shooting in Denmark. You know why? its not because we don't got crazy people but its because they cant get armed. its simple logic. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
The vast majority of mass shootings occur where guns are banned and the shooter knows they will have free reign. Shooters are rarely looking to get shot by others. Instead they give up or take their own life. They want to have power and they get that in a place where they will be the only one armed. That is why people "go postal" (post offices do not allow guns) or engage in shootouts at schools or other places where weapons are restricted. They do not walk into police stations or shooting ranges and open fire because they do not like others shooting back. Even the Fort Hood shooter chose to do his shooting in the dining hall where firearms were not allowed. This is not to say that firearms do not increase murders, but the mass murder argument does not hold water. The best arguments against firearms are crimes of passion, mistaken identity and accidents. Someone may lose their temper and it is much easier to pull a trigger than stab or beat someone to death. Also you have family members who are mistaken for burglars. Basically it is much easier to mistake your kid for a burglar and shoot them to to mistake them for a burglar and beat them to death. | ||
|
ArmOfDeath
United States30 Posts
| ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:26 Eps wrote: But..that's why countries with heavily regulated federal level gun control are much more dangerous right? I find the US is beyond help. Their marketplace is already too over-saturated with guns. But we see the failures in their current system way too often in the news. Our gun crime rate is not really exponentially more than countries with more restrictions on ownership. A lot of the "number of times it comes up" is because of our population numbers. My state has had ONE shooting rampage that I'm aware of during my lifetime. The state has the same amount of people as the COUNTRY of Finland (which just had a crazy shooting go down). My state has 1.8 Gun homicides per 100k. some of the most saturated states in terms of gun ownership, such as Wyoming and the Dakotas, have lower gun homocide rates than countries such as Switzerland, Spain, and Greece. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:41 Benjamin99 wrote: look at the numbers below you they work. We have never had a school shooting in Denmark. You know why? its not because we don't got crazy people but its because they cant get armed. its simple logic. if you can come up with a way to take the guns away from criminals, prevent criminals from getting guns in USA, go for it, then i'll support gun control but the reality does not allow that in USA. i honestly dont think you understand the implications of gun control in USA do use your logic on what gun control will do in USA without some super power that can actually enforce banning guns from those who do not want to follow the law. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:30 TheRabidDeer wrote: And how do you suggest the US collect these weapons so the public doesnt have them? What about gun collectors? What do you do about the massive black market that would show up if the US tried to forcibly take all of the weapons away? Guns do not work for eternity, they break down in time. The black market can be supplied, as I pointed out already in a post you responded to, by smuggling them from abroad, stealing legal ones or producing them. Second option slowly disappears as there are no more guns to be stolen. Third one is of limited value. So that leaves only smuggled weapons. I already pointed out the outcome of that. Especially if Mexico could be persuaded to do the same. Then smuggling becomes just a small issue and only some crime syndicates will be able to afford the guns. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:41 Benjamin99 wrote: look at the numbers below you they work. We have never had a school shooting in Denmark. You know why? its not because we don't got crazy people but its because they cant get armed. its simple logic. You're wrong. A quick google search shows 4 seperate shootings in denmark schools on the very first page. | ||
|
Benjamin99
4176 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote: I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? How do you explain that you country got like like 1000% more deaths involving firearms then any other country? You just got more murderers that's you logic? | ||
|
iLikeRain
Denmark504 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote: I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? Did you read about the school massacre in China? No gun, used a knife. Deaths? None. | ||
|
Eps
Canada240 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:39 Nagano wrote: At these times, it's important that you remember to use facts to back up your claim. Gun control laws DO. NOT. WORK. PERIOD. At first it might make sense, hey they used guns to kill, guns are dangerous, ban them etc. Just look at all the facts available to you on the internet from reputable sources. This is where personal beliefs might not equal reality. So before you go calling for a gun ban, read up on the facts of gun control efficacy. CT has had an assault weapon ban in place since 1994, it did nothing to stop this. NYC has a complete gun ban, so do many other crime ridden areas. Gun crime rises when there are gun bans in place. Again, the internet is your friend here--use it. Furthermore, I'd like to ask the gun control folks, who obviously haven't been exposed to the facts regarding gun control, what other constitutional amendments they aren't in favor of. There is a certain ignorance to following the constitution only as how you see fit. State by state legislation will not do much to stop the problem. Say you ban assault weapons in one state, what's stopping the individual from going to another state to buy it where it's legal? You need a Federal ban. Actually it isn't necessary to have bans. But rather regulation. True regulation and restrictions, none of that here wait 2 weeks and here's your gun. And I'm not sure where you get your data from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Connecticut#Assault_weapons CT - Assault Weapons Ban - Partial ban (selective fire weapons, some .50 BMG variants, an enumerated list of specific restricted features and certain brands of semi-automatic assault weapons and weapon "types".) No restrictions on magazine capacity. Wow..you can't get a .50 cal, and some old school Russian SKS's. Says nothing on AR-15s and those seem to be the weapon of choice for mass-shooters lately. CT doesn't have an assault-weapons ban. They have a partial-ban and that barely covers the vast amount of guns. Cause we all see school shooters using big boar 50 cal's right? | ||
|
Hypemeup
Sweden2783 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:43 jinorazi wrote: if you can come up with a way to take the guns away from criminals, prevent criminals from getting guns in USA, go for it, then i'll support gun control but the reality does not allow that in USA. i honestly dont think you understand the implications of gun control in USA do use your logic on what gun control will do in USA without some super power that can actually enforce banning guns from those who do not want to follow the law. It is a complex issue, America is unique in this case. Imposing higher requirements on buying new firearms would be a start however. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 15 2012 06:37 Eps wrote: Gun ownership per capita United States 88.8 Rank - 1 Sweden 31.6 Rank - 10 Canada 30.8 Rank - 13 We're not far behind from you guys. But our gun violence rates are relatively low. Of course, essentially most nations in the global north have low rates of gun violence compared to the US. Homicide Rates United States 4.2 Total - 12,996 Canada 1.6 Total - 554 Sweden 1.0 Total - 91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate homicide rates != homicide by firearm rates. | ||
| ||
