|
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. |
On February 20 2012 11:20 FliedLice wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:16 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 11:14 Voros wrote:On February 20 2012 11:01 TanTzoR wrote:
But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price. I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? Thank you for proving the point that the advocates of the Second Amendment and responsible firearm ownership have been making for about 20 pages now. Haha, I found that amusing as well. So lost in his argument that logic seeped in and he ended up arguing for the very thing he was against. He's saying that in a rather wealthy, peaceful society it makes no difference, which both of these countries have.
Which is exactly what us pro-gun people have been saying. It shoots down the idea that gun control reduces crime. It isn't the gun control reducing crime, its the economic stability that's reducing crime.
I admit that having guns will probably not reduce crime, but at least legal owners can defend themselves if they are victimized.
|
***If you are unable to read, there is a TLDR at the bottom***
One of the main arguments for more strict gun control is that people believe more guns = more homicides. I thought many of you would like to read this research I found on a study of Many European Countries
The first graph is: Gun Homicides in Europe ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1b1ke.jpg) And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cf3ee.jpg) Okay, right away one will notice the lack of symmetry between the two graphs. Not all the countries listed on the one graph are listed on the other. Why is that? Good question. And I don’t have an answer. But what I can do is supply information that has been omitted to help paint a clearer picture. But before I do that, let me point out the central claim that a pro-gun control advocate would potentially make by juxtaposing the two graphs. “Countries with more guns are more dangerous. They have a higher gun-related homicide rate and a higher total intentional homicide rate.” One can easily refute that argument by looking at a country like Switzerland. Switzerland has approximately 45.7 guns per 100 people (that’s the fourth highest in the world). Now, what is Switzerland’s gun-related homicide rate? Curiously, that information is omitted from the BBC graph. I did some research. And while I couldn’t find a current figure for Switzerland’s gun related homicide rate, I did find that the country’s overall intentional homicide rate is .66 per 100,000 people. That figure is lower than Italy (.7 per 100,000), Macedonia (1.2 per 100,000), and Albania’s (1.8 per 100,000) gun-related homicide rate. And all of those countries have fewer guns per 100 people: Italy (11.9), Macedonia (7.63), and Albania (16.21). Also, make note of the inequity of the comparison. I’m comparing Switzerland’s total intentional homicide rate against those countries’ gun-related homicide rate, which is actually a component of the total intentional homicide rate. So, let me adjust the comparison and compare apples to apples. Switzerland’s total intentional homicide rate is, as mentioned, .66 per 100,000 people. Italy’s total intentional homicide rate is .98 per 100,000 people. Macedonia’s total intentional homicide rate is 1.94 per 100,000 people. And Albania’s total intentional homicide rate is 2.9 per 100,000 people. Again, all of those countries have fewer firearms than Switzerland. Moreover, all of those countries have a gun-related homicide rate that is higher than Switzerland’s total intentional homicide rate. Does Switzerland have super tough gun control laws? It would appear that when compared to other European nations, they have relatively lax gun regulations. The BBC article stated: Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership as Swiss men keep their army gun at home after they finish compulsory military service. No-one knows the exact number of guns as there is no national register but it is estimated that there are two to three million firearms in the country, which has a population of seven million. Voters rejected proposed tighter controls on gun ownership in a referendum in April 2011. So, what’s the point of all this analysis? First, as has been pointed out in the past, more guns does not equate to more crime. Switzerland is a prime example of this fact. Second, the gun-related homicide rate in a country has less to do with the prevalence of guns than many gun-control advocates would like to believe. And connections and/or correlations that are drawn along these lines are often limited in scope and lacking context. Three, societal factors (culture, socio-economic standing, etc.) not gun control or limits on gun ownership, are chiefly responsible for a country’s homicide rate.
Truly an interesting article in light of the fact that people think that more guns bring about more homicides. There are obviously many other different factors that play a role.
Additionally, I found another article in which a statistician again analyzed the misnomer of why the fact that because 60% of murders in the US are by firearm does not mean that you are in more danger of being killed in the US than in the UK
Check this out:
Source: http://www.guns.com/gun-homicides-in-europe-an-overview.html
All too often, I find myself reading some line of nonsense about how gun control legislation is important to protect the lives of citizens, all "proven" by gun crime statistics in the US. In one discussion in particular, some hoplophobic idiot tried to tell me that the fact guns account for the weapon of choice in more murders than all other weapons combined means they're too dangerous to allow people to have. This says nothing at all about the actual murder rate, and the effect of gun control legislation on the murder rate — just that, even if the murder rate is lower in the presence of firearms, guns end up having the largest share of the murder market in the US.
An alternative theory of the statistic might go something like this:
More guns in the hands of private citizens discourage people from committing murder with knives.
The number of murders with knives declined, and the number of murders with guns remained constant.
The overall number of murders decreased because of the decline in knife murder rates, so the percentage of murders committed with guns increased even though the number of gun murders remained constant.
I don't have any idea whether that's an accurate explanation for the higher rate of gun murders than knife murders in the US. The statistical basis for proving or disproving this kind of theory of the effect guns have on murder rates doesn't exactly exist. It certainly is a plausible-sounding hypothesis, though, and no less supported by the lone statistic of 68% of murders in the US in 2006 being committed with guns.
The same guy, in the same comment where he pointed out that more murders are committed with guns than with any other weapon in the US, also linked to UK gun crime figures. Well, sure, let's compare crime rates in the UK with those in the US. We've already established that gun crimes are more numerous in the US than knife crimes, and I'll stipulate for the sake of argument that gun crimes are more numerous in the US than in the UK (though there are niggling holes in that comparison, too). Let's try a different comparison. Note that I'm probably overestimating the UK population and underestimating the US population in these statistical comparisons, which favors the UK in terms of estimating low crime rates (since these rates are measured per capita). The same goes for the fact I'm underestimating UK crime incidences and overestimating US incidences. Despite heavily favoring the UK for determining the per capita statistics, I think you'll find the results illuminating:
In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.
In England and Wales alone — discounting Scotland — there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.
By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.
In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.
In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).
In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).
That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.
Statistical studies can be great tools for determining the results of policy changes, but the devil lies in the details. Simply picking a number out of thin air — like the fact that 68% of murders are committed by the use of a firearm in the US — in no way proves anything other than that 68% of murders are committed by the use of a firearm. That alone doesn't mean you're in more danger in the US because of laxer gun control legislation than in the UK, where firearms are all but entirely prohibited (hey, at least the police can check them out of the supply room under very extreme circumstances — right?).
Note that even the statistical comparisons I present here are not sufficient to prove a case. There are too many other variables in comparisons between crime rates in the UK and in the US to reasonably expect any real certainty about exactly what effect gun control laws have in either country. A far more reliable statistical comparison for purposes of determining the effect of gun control legislation is, as I pointed out in gun control arguments aren't exactly "rigorous", to compare crime statistics before the passage or repeal of a gun law to those after the passage of the law — say, the three years prior and the three years after. Other factors will come into play, but given enough case studies, trends will definitely be seen to emerge.
If you aren't prepared to produce statistics like that, you aren't prepared to produce statistics that prove anything worthwhile about the efficacy of gun control legislation.
This is actually saying that more people in the UK are actually willing to commit violent crimes than in the US!! Is this because they are not afraid that their victim is carrying anything other than a knife and therefore won't be able to harm them? I asked him this question and he answered:
That's definitely a possibility, if more people are willing to engage in acts of criminal violence in the UK than in the US. Judging by the statistics I've seen, the jury is still out on that score, but at the very least they do seem suggestive of the idea that firearms prohibitions may actually contribute to higher rates of criminal violence.
In fact, judging by the statistics I've seen, the matter of whether increased prevalence of legal gun ownership correlates with higher violent crime rates should probably already be considered a settled matter. The statistics seem to indicate that, at worst, a greater prevalence of legally owned firearms has no measurable effect on violent crime rates, and may in fact reduce the incidence of such crimes. Passage of shall-issue legislation and other laws that significantly contribute to increased legal presence of firearms tend to correlate strongly with drops in violent crime rates. Surveys of inmates convicted of violent crimes seem to support this evidence, as they overwhelmingly agree that there's more to be feared from an armed citizen they target than from the police.
Sources:
http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0607.html
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
*****So to top it all off, yes I do believe people should be able to own weapons.....with certain restrictions obviously
TL;DR
More guns (fewer gun control laws) does not equate to more crime. Switzerland is a prime example of this fact where they have a higher average rate of gun ownership than Italy, Albania and Macedonia, yet still have a lower homicide AND gun related homicide rate.
Statistics about firearm homicides and other murders are misunderstood and currently DO NOT SHOW that increased gun rates lead to increased violent crimes and murder. They may even point to decreased violent crimes via fear of a victim successfully defending themselves.
|
On February 20 2012 02:53 Hertzy wrote:The other thread is going off topic with people debating about the general right to own and carry guns. This has been an ongoing debate in the United States since their founding. In Finland, where public carry permissions are effectively nonexistent, the school shootings of the past decade have been fueling the debate on gun ownership in general. I personally believe that, in a perfect world, the law enforcement alone would be capable of wielding all the violence needed to keep society safe. However, this is an imperfect world. Criminals have gotten access to guns, and that is a genie that isn't going back into the bottle. The law enforcement has finite resources and can't always be there in time. Therefore I believe a person should have the right to arm themself for the purpose of self defence. Further, I do not think that the actions of what is essentially the global bottom ten participants in a class of hobbies should be taken as a reason to limit said hobbies.
in a perfect world, there would be no such thing as "law enforcement", infact, there would be no laws and no state, since noone would break laws or use the initiantion of force and moreover. (and if you so desperatly need to have a state) there would be no criminals in the law enforcement ("we" put guns into criminals hands).
on topic : give me one good arguement that it has to be a lethal weapon instead of non-lethal.
|
I'm surprised, this thread is actually coming to a logical conclusion of sorts. Well done TL
|
On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:***If you are unable to read, there is a TLDR at the bottom*** One of the main arguments for more strict gun control is that people believe more guns = more homicides. I thought many of you would like to read this research I found on a study of Many European Countries Show nested quote +The first graph is: Gun Homicides in Europe And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun Okay, right away one will notice the lack of symmetry between the two graphs. Not all the countries listed on the one graph are listed on the other. Why is that? Good question. And I don’t have an answer. But what I can do is supply information that has been omitted to help paint a clearer picture. But before I do that, let me point out the central claim that a pro-gun control advocate would potentially make by juxtaposing the two graphs. “Countries with more guns are more dangerous. They have a higher gun-related homicide rate and a higher total intentional homicide rate.” One can easily refute that argument by looking at a country like Switzerland. Switzerland has approximately 45.7 guns per 100 people (that’s the fourth highest in the world). Now, what is Switzerland’s gun-related homicide rate? Curiously, that information is omitted from the BBC graph. I did some research. And while I couldn’t find a current figure for Switzerland’s gun related homicide rate, I did find that the country’s overall intentional homicide rate is .66 per 100,000 people. That figure is lower than Italy (.7 per 100,000), Macedonia (1.2 per 100,000), and Albania’s (1.8 per 100,000) gun-related homicide rate. And all of those countries have fewer guns per 100 people: Italy (11.9), Macedonia (7.63), and Albania (16.21). Also, make note of the inequity of the comparison. I’m comparing Switzerland’s total intentional homicide rate against those countries’ gun-related homicide rate, which is actually a component of the total intentional homicide rate. So, let me adjust the comparison and compare apples to apples. Switzerland’s total intentional homicide rate is, as mentioned, .66 per 100,000 people. Italy’s total intentional homicide rate is .98 per 100,000 people. Macedonia’s total intentional homicide rate is 1.94 per 100,000 people. And Albania’s total intentional homicide rate is 2.9 per 100,000 people. Again, all of those countries have fewer firearms than Switzerland. Moreover, all of those countries have a gun-related homicide rate that is higher than Switzerland’s total intentional homicide rate. Does Switzerland have super tough gun control laws? It would appear that when compared to other European nations, they have relatively lax gun regulations. The BBC article stated: Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership as Swiss men keep their army gun at home after they finish compulsory military service. No-one knows the exact number of guns as there is no national register but it is estimated that there are two to three million firearms in the country, which has a population of seven million. Voters rejected proposed tighter controls on gun ownership in a referendum in April 2011. So, what’s the point of all this analysis? First, as has been pointed out in the past, more guns does not equate to more crime. Switzerland is a prime example of this fact. Second, the gun-related homicide rate in a country has less to do with the prevalence of guns than many gun-control advocates would like to believe. And connections and/or correlations that are drawn along these lines are often limited in scope and lacking context. Three, societal factors (culture, socio-economic standing, etc.) not gun control or limits on gun ownership, are chiefly responsible for a country’s homicide rate. Truly an interesting article in light of the fact that people think that more guns bring about more homicides. There are obviously many other different factors that play a role. Additionally, I found another article in which a statistician again analyzed the misnomer of why the fact that because 60% of murders in the US are by firearm does not mean that you are in more danger of being killed in the US than in the UK Check this out: Source: http://www.guns.com/gun-homicides-in-europe-an-overview.htmlShow nested quote +
All too often, I find myself reading some line of nonsense about how gun control legislation is important to protect the lives of citizens, all "proven" by gun crime statistics in the US. In one discussion in particular, some hoplophobic idiot tried to tell me that the fact guns account for the weapon of choice in more murders than all other weapons combined means they're too dangerous to allow people to have. This says nothing at all about the actual murder rate, and the effect of gun control legislation on the murder rate — just that, even if the murder rate is lower in the presence of firearms, guns end up having the largest share of the murder market in the US.
An alternative theory of the statistic might go something like this:
More guns in the hands of private citizens discourage people from committing murder with knives.
The number of murders with knives declined, and the number of murders with guns remained constant.
The overall number of murders decreased because of the decline in knife murder rates, so the percentage of murders committed with guns increased even though the number of gun murders remained constant.
I don't have any idea whether that's an accurate explanation for the higher rate of gun murders than knife murders in the US. The statistical basis for proving or disproving this kind of theory of the effect guns have on murder rates doesn't exactly exist. It certainly is a plausible-sounding hypothesis, though, and no less supported by the lone statistic of 68% of murders in the US in 2006 being committed with guns.
The same guy, in the same comment where he pointed out that more murders are committed with guns than with any other weapon in the US, also linked to UK gun crime figures. Well, sure, let's compare crime rates in the UK with those in the US. We've already established that gun crimes are more numerous in the US than knife crimes, and I'll stipulate for the sake of argument that gun crimes are more numerous in the US than in the UK (though there are niggling holes in that comparison, too). Let's try a different comparison. Note that I'm probably overestimating the UK population and underestimating the US population in these statistical comparisons, which favors the UK in terms of estimating low crime rates (since these rates are measured per capita). The same goes for the fact I'm underestimating UK crime incidences and overestimating US incidences. Despite heavily favoring the UK for determining the per capita statistics, I think you'll find the results illuminating:
In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.
In England and Wales alone — discounting Scotland — there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.
By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.
In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.
In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).
In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).
That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.
Statistical studies can be great tools for determining the results of policy changes, but the devil lies in the details. Simply picking a number out of thin air — like the fact that 68% of murders are committed by the use of a firearm in the US — in no way proves anything other than that 68% of murders are committed by the use of a firearm. That alone doesn't mean you're in more danger in the US because of laxer gun control legislation than in the UK, where firearms are all but entirely prohibited (hey, at least the police can check them out of the supply room under very extreme circumstances — right?).
Note that even the statistical comparisons I present here are not sufficient to prove a case. There are too many other variables in comparisons between crime rates in the UK and in the US to reasonably expect any real certainty about exactly what effect gun control laws have in either country. A far more reliable statistical comparison for purposes of determining the effect of gun control legislation is, as I pointed out in gun control arguments aren't exactly "rigorous", to compare crime statistics before the passage or repeal of a gun law to those after the passage of the law — say, the three years prior and the three years after. Other factors will come into play, but given enough case studies, trends will definitely be seen to emerge.
If you aren't prepared to produce statistics like that, you aren't prepared to produce statistics that prove anything worthwhile about the efficacy of gun control legislation.
This is actually saying that more people in the UK are actually willing to commit violent crimes than in the US!! Is this because they are not afraid that their victim is carrying anything other than a knife and therefore won't be able to harm them? I asked him this question and he answered: Show nested quote +That's definitely a possibility, if more people are willing to engage in acts of criminal violence in the UK than in the US. Judging by the statistics I've seen, the jury is still out on that score, but at the very least they do seem suggestive of the idea that firearms prohibitions may actually contribute to higher rates of criminal violence.
In fact, judging by the statistics I've seen, the matter of whether increased prevalence of legal gun ownership correlates with higher violent crime rates should probably already be considered a settled matter. The statistics seem to indicate that, at worst, a greater prevalence of legally owned firearms has no measurable effect on violent crime rates, and may in fact reduce the incidence of such crimes. Passage of shall-issue legislation and other laws that significantly contribute to increased legal presence of firearms tend to correlate strongly with drops in violent crime rates. Surveys of inmates convicted of violent crimes seem to support this evidence, as they overwhelmingly agree that there's more to be feared from an armed citizen they target than from the police. Sources: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.htmlhttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0607.htmlhttps://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Stateshttp://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm*****So to top it all off, yes I do believe people should be able to own weapons.....with certain restrictions obviously TL;DR More guns (fewer gun control laws) does not equate to more crime. Switzerland is a prime example of this fact where they have a higher average rate of gun ownership than Italy, Albania and Macedonia, yet still have a lower homicide AND gun related homicide rate. Statistics about firearm homicides and other murders are misunderstood and currently DO NOT SHOW that increased gun rates lead to increased violent crimes and murder. They may even point to decreased violent crimes via fear of a victim successfully defending themselves.
Thanks for taking the time to post this. I have always been lazy myself, instead telling people to just google it. But, I guess they'd rather speak with anecdotes than with evidence. Hopefully, they will take the facts for, I don't know, facts? The backfire effect almost always finds a way, however.
Offtopic: is this Sinnwin? Moose?
|
On February 20 2012 11:20 FliedLice wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:16 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 11:14 Voros wrote:On February 20 2012 11:01 TanTzoR wrote:
But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price. I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? Thank you for proving the point that the advocates of the Second Amendment and responsible firearm ownership have been making for about 20 pages now. Haha, I found that amusing as well. So lost in his argument that logic seeped in and he ended up arguing for the very thing he was against. He's saying that in a rather wealthy, peaceful society it makes no difference, which both of these countries have.
Thank you a lot.
Poverty and guns are working on combination. You understand the word combination?
|
On February 20 2012 11:28 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:20 FliedLice wrote:On February 20 2012 11:16 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 11:14 Voros wrote:On February 20 2012 11:01 TanTzoR wrote:
But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price. I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? Thank you for proving the point that the advocates of the Second Amendment and responsible firearm ownership have been making for about 20 pages now. Haha, I found that amusing as well. So lost in his argument that logic seeped in and he ended up arguing for the very thing he was against. He's saying that in a rather wealthy, peaceful society it makes no difference, which both of these countries have. Thank you a lot. Poverty and guns are working on combination. You understand the word combination?
I don't mean to be insulting, but you're living in a bubble. A bubble from all the research and facts on gun prevalence and gun control. At this point, I would like to say that we should just agree to disagree since you don't live in the realm where the facts on the subject would challenge your beliefs.
|
Man drinks alcohol
Man gets behind vehicle wheel intoxicated with said alcohol
Man kills family while driving in in vehicle intoxicated with alcohol
I don't see calls for alcohol to be completed prohibited by the European posters even though alcohol chemically alters brain function and can cause damage to oneself and others. Maybe one reason is drinking beer, wine, vodka has cultural significance in Western/Eastern whereas owning guns isn't?
Gun ownership is a part of our Bill of Rights, therefore is a part of culture. Does making gun ownership solve the problems in America when they are all much deeper and fundamental? And when people take up their action with other weapons will we then need to make illegal that as well?
|
I think the license should be extremely hard to get and very easy to lose, with very strict checkups and regulation.
Of course this would mean a certain established system to regulate this. Without a strong system it cannot observe and control incase it got out of hand like corruption and parallel market.
I think there is a minimum requirement and most countries don't meet it.
|
Guns make me nervous. I grew up in the south with a Christian Conservative type of family. They love their guns and I've always been really nervous around them. They make me uncomfortable, partially because I don't trust anyone with them, I don't care how well intentioned you are, I don't trust you owning a gun. I think the root of the problems starts with education, especially in the south, a lot of gun toting, paranoid red necks just want to act tough and flaunt their small minded way of thinking. Another is lower class citizens resorting to gangs, illegal drugs etc. which leads to guns, which then leads to people thinking they need a gun to protect themselves then it all comes full circle back to education.
So no I don't agree with people owning guns but I don't think it's as simple as taking it away.
|
On February 20 2012 11:28 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:20 FliedLice wrote:On February 20 2012 11:16 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 11:14 Voros wrote:On February 20 2012 11:01 TanTzoR wrote:
But I'm wondering how many crack addicts with low income committed crime with a gun that they bought for a ridiculous price. I lived in Switzerland, you will never see anyone spit on the floor. People are wealthy, peaceful. That's the reason there is a low crime rate. Not because they have guns. Guess what, in Luxembourg there is a low crime rate as well. And people don't have guns. Surprise? Thank you for proving the point that the advocates of the Second Amendment and responsible firearm ownership have been making for about 20 pages now. Haha, I found that amusing as well. So lost in his argument that logic seeped in and he ended up arguing for the very thing he was against. He's saying that in a rather wealthy, peaceful society it makes no difference, which both of these countries have. Thank you a lot. Poverty and guns are working on combination. You understand the word combination?
Getting rid of the poverty solves all the crime problems though. Getting rid of the guns only solves some of the gun crime problems, except for the fact that people will still be able to get illegal guns.
Solve poverty, and you solve all the crime problems, AND we get to keep our guns for the range and hunting.
|
On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun
I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms.
Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population?
It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone.
I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum.
|
On February 20 2012 11:32 pyrogenetix wrote:
I think the license should be extremely hard to get and very easy to lose, with very strict checkups and regulation.
Of course this would mean a certain established system to regulate this. Without a strong system it cannot observe and control incase it got out of hand like corruption and parallel market.
I think there is a minimum requirement and most countries don't meet it.
I agree that gun licenses should be a privilege. However, take into account that most firearms involved in shootings are illegally obtained, meaning that increasing the restrictions to become a gun owner would only serve to at best inconvenience the typical law abiding citizen.
|
On February 20 2012 11:34 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum.
Point taken. Anecdotal evidence (as usual). Thanks for your input.
|
On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:
More guns (fewer gun control laws) does not equate to more crime. Switzerland is a prime example of this fact where they have a higher average rate of gun ownership than Italy, Albania and Macedonia, yet still have a lower homicide AND gun related homicide rate.
I'm especially bothered by that part of your post. May seem obvious, but have you ever heard "you don't compare apples and oranges"? Any half decent statistician (or person who's undergone any kind of high education) would point out that you can't compare different countries like because there's a WORLD of different conjunctures that you haven't analysed. The lack of correlation of data between distinct countries does not imply the lack of causation of a concept which should be analysed over time.
Also I feel the need to mention that statistics in every country are taken differently. For instance, unemployment is calculated differently in Canada than it is in the US (the criteria to be considered "unemployed" are different). The way guns are counted is obviously inaccurate with different degrees of error in each country. For instance, the US has a f'load of illegal weapons that are unaccounted for.
So what do we have as far as studies on guns? A bunch of PhDs in soft sciences that are on both sides - some say guns are good, others say guns are bad - some are funded by republicans, others are funded by organizations for traumatized victims of violent crimes.
Also, you use some graphs in your thread and the cited source is "small arms survey". Just thought you should ponder about that. Also note that the first graph sorts data in absolute numbers (with the rate on the side) and the second one sorts it in rates. This is deceptive, and doesn't work. Those graphics were not meant to be seen together, at least not by anyone honest. Provided everything was made fairly, the first graph would favor big countries for making the list, for instance. There is no sense of objectivity.
|
On February 20 2012 11:36 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:34 TanTzoR wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. Point taken. Anecdotal evidence (as usual). Thanks for your input.
Find a single french TLer who owns a gun, and I will agree with everything you said. Just a single one. 30% is just an absurd number. Citizens are not allowed to have any guns, there is nothing like a license (except for hunting). So that would mean that either 30% of the population are hunters, or that 29% of the population is illegally carrying weapons?
|
On February 20 2012 11:34 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum.
Some people may own more than one gun. If 1 guy owns 30 guns, and 99 others own 0, thats still 30 guns for every 100 people. I would bet that that is how they get the 30% thing.
I know plenty of gun owners, especially hunters, own more than one gun. If its true what you said that mostly its only hunters who own guns, it makes sense that there'd be more guns than gun owners. Hunters like different guns for different game, or different areas.
|
To be deleted, missclick.
|
On February 20 2012 11:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:34 TanTzoR wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. Some people may own more than one gun. If 1 guy owns 30 guns, and 99 others own 0, thats still 30 guns for every 100 people. I would bet that that is how they get the 30% thing. I know plenty of gun owners, especially hunters, own more than one gun. If its true what you said that mostly its only hunters who own guns, it makes sense that there'd be more guns than gun owners. Hunters like different guns for different game, or different areas.
the problem wouldnt be to find ONE french tler with a gun,it would be to find a french with a gun.is there something like a shooting range in france?quite a few hunters in some regions but thats it.
|
Give me one good reason why I shouldn't own my guns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
