|
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 21 2012 04:02 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:56 micronesia wrote:
I just can't agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun, by default, is to kill people. Going to have to agree to disagree then, if you're so inclined. But I wouldn't say I did anything fallacious. I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing. It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason. Edit: Acrofales brings up a good point, IMO. Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:56 Millitron wrote:On February 21 2012 03:53 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. Guns don't give birth to millions like alcohol does x_X LOL. You are kidding right? Because if not we have to get into the whole deal about unplanned pregnancies, and how those kids often live really shitty lives, and it just perpetuates the cycle of poverty, and these births are just as much of a problem as the deaths. I was kind of, mostly kidding?  I'm pro-choice btw don't blame me! Note that plenty of unplanned pregnancies end up well :D
I'm pro-choice too, but it'd be better to not have to make the choice in the first place.
The fact that plenty of unplanned pregnancies end up well is just more evidence that pure statistics alone aren't enough to determine what laws should be instituted, but given our PM conversation, I think we've already settled this.
|
its rather simple, i would feel more safely in an enviroment where everyone can carry a gun openly, just because if you use the gun for the wrong reasons you have to face what you ve done immediatly.
Well, to clarify it, i live in a mostly gunvoid enviroment, i don t own a fireweapon, envn i know how to handle it (from military duty). But from my viewpoint: gunbans encurage criminals, plain and simple, cause criminals don t care bout gunbans, and got like a plain field then.
You can t put the jeanie back in the bottle, i think its clear.
another point: seldom police can protect you, mostly they just look at the crimescene and investigate then, they can t mostly prevent it!
and last point, did u know, in literally every genocide last century there was a gunban ahead ...
so i say: guns for ppl who can properly handle them
greetz
|
On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances?
I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get.
I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here.
To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand.
By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you.
Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time.
The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege!
I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe.
As for evidence.. here...
Murders with Firearms
then compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys)
UK Population = 63 million
US Population = 313 Million
Murders per person =
UK = 1 per 4.5 million
US = 1 per 33408
This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20%
On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so."
Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person.
Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else.
|
Same in Sweden. If someone owned a gun just for fun or "for their protection" people would call that person a nutcase.
|
United States24569 Posts
On February 21 2012 04:14 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:09 micronesia wrote:On February 21 2012 04:02 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 03:56 micronesia wrote:
I just can't agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun, by default, is to kill people. Going to have to agree to disagree then, if you're so inclined. But I wouldn't say I did anything fallacious. I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing. It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason. Edit: Acrofales brings up a good point, IMO. You haven't identified how you determine what the primary purpose of a tool is. You've decided for guns it's to kill people and for cars it's to turn the wheels, but how do you, for each tool, determine this? "I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing" Why do you keep essentially saying "I think it's reasonable that <my position in this discussion>"? "It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason." So are you saying that the way in which the guns are used determines what they are designed to do? Aren't these two different things? Also, do you have statistics on how much guns are used for various purposes in the USA? No, I don't have an objective way to decide what's an object's function nor do I have statistics. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have an answer. All I have is my subjective reasoning - I look at this thread, plenty of people are talking about self defense, shooting at other people. Then I look at the army, people who are trained to kill with their firearms. Same thing with the police. Then I look at target practice - the target is oftentimes shaped like a person's upper body. Do I have solid evidence - no absolutely not. But to ME, these things add up. Guns are for killing people and other stuff. Is the primary function of a gun killing people? Well I, Carl M.C, certainly think so. Disagree? Hit me with your stats and change my opinion, but until then don't tell me my opinion is wrong.
If you are presenting this stance as your opinion unless you see sufficient evidence to convince you otherwise, that's fine. Just realize you said stuff like this:
On February 21 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
I don't think people can argue against the fact that at the top of the list of a gun's function, there's "shooting at other people"
...which means that your opinion, which you claim you are entitled to (which you are of course), is something that you don't think people can argue against. Then you put the burden of evidence that your subjective opinion isn't infallible... on the other person. If you want to assert your opinion so strongly, don't you want to also have evidence to back it up? I'm guilty of this too although I didn't say things like 'I don't see why people would disagree with me' :p
|
On February 21 2012 04:22 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:14 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 04:09 micronesia wrote:On February 21 2012 04:02 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 03:56 micronesia wrote:
I just can't agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun, by default, is to kill people. Going to have to agree to disagree then, if you're so inclined. But I wouldn't say I did anything fallacious. I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing. It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason. Edit: Acrofales brings up a good point, IMO. You haven't identified how you determine what the primary purpose of a tool is. You've decided for guns it's to kill people and for cars it's to turn the wheels, but how do you, for each tool, determine this? "I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing" Why do you keep essentially saying "I think it's reasonable that <my position in this discussion>"? "It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason." So are you saying that the way in which the guns are used determines what they are designed to do? Aren't these two different things? Also, do you have statistics on how much guns are used for various purposes in the USA? No, I don't have an objective way to decide what's an object's function nor do I have statistics. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have an answer. All I have is my subjective reasoning - I look at this thread, plenty of people are talking about self defense, shooting at other people. Then I look at the army, people who are trained to kill with their firearms. Same thing with the police. Then I look at target practice - the target is oftentimes shaped like a person's upper body. Do I have solid evidence - no absolutely not. But to ME, these things add up. Guns are for killing people and other stuff. Is the primary function of a gun killing people? Well I, Carl M.C, certainly think so. Disagree? Hit me with your stats and change my opinion, but until then don't tell me my opinion is wrong. If you are presenting this stance as your opinion unless you see sufficient evidence to convince you otherwise, that's fine. Just realize you said stuff like this: Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
I don't think people can argue against the fact that at the top of the list of a gun's function, there's "shooting at other people" ...which means that your opinion, which you claim you are entitled to (which you are of course), is something that you don't think people can argue against. Then you put the burden of evidence that your subjective opinion isn't infallible... on the other person. If you want to assert your opinion so strongly, don't you want to also have evidence to back it up? I'm guilty of this too although I didn't say things like 'I don't see why people would disagree with me' :p
You're allowed to argue when I drool on myself and say "you don't have a case and I'm kind of a big deal". =P
I meant to say "toward the top of the list" anyway. Wouldn't you agree?
|
You can discuss it all you want but pretty much 75% of the general population is an idiot and you don't want idiots to own guns because they're idiots.
|
On February 21 2012 04:13 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:12 Gentso wrote:You haven't identified how you determine what the primary purpose of a tool is Because a gun is defined as a weapon first and foremost. By who? If we are going to classify things we should at least by clear about how and why we are classifying them. Evidence is needed. What are other examples of tools that are weapons first and foremost? What are examples of tools that are often used as weapons, but are not weapons first and foremost? Why the distinction?
I'm almost certain that just about every definition of gun there is includes weapon in its primary description. Trying to argue that a gun isn't designed to kill is an incredible reach. Your only argument you could make is that there are guns out there like a glue gun or staple gun that aren't designed to kill people, fine. On the other hand, the guns being discussed are classified as weapons/firearms by those that make them. The bullets used in them are designed and shaped to penetrate people and armor.
|
United States24569 Posts
On February 21 2012 04:24 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:22 micronesia wrote:On February 21 2012 04:14 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 04:09 micronesia wrote:On February 21 2012 04:02 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 03:56 micronesia wrote:
I just can't agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun, by default, is to kill people. Going to have to agree to disagree then, if you're so inclined. But I wouldn't say I did anything fallacious. I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing. It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason. Edit: Acrofales brings up a good point, IMO. You haven't identified how you determine what the primary purpose of a tool is. You've decided for guns it's to kill people and for cars it's to turn the wheels, but how do you, for each tool, determine this? "I think it's fairly reasonable to define firearms as objects with the primary function of killing" Why do you keep essentially saying "I think it's reasonable that <my position in this discussion>"? "It's true that at this point, many guns are purchased for recreational purposes and whatnot, but still even during target practice for many people the point is to get ready for eventually having to shoot a person. I figure, the people who use weapons the most are in the army and in the police force - they shoot at paper for that reason." So are you saying that the way in which the guns are used determines what they are designed to do? Aren't these two different things? Also, do you have statistics on how much guns are used for various purposes in the USA? No, I don't have an objective way to decide what's an object's function nor do I have statistics. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have an answer. All I have is my subjective reasoning - I look at this thread, plenty of people are talking about self defense, shooting at other people. Then I look at the army, people who are trained to kill with their firearms. Same thing with the police. Then I look at target practice - the target is oftentimes shaped like a person's upper body. Do I have solid evidence - no absolutely not. But to ME, these things add up. Guns are for killing people and other stuff. Is the primary function of a gun killing people? Well I, Carl M.C, certainly think so. Disagree? Hit me with your stats and change my opinion, but until then don't tell me my opinion is wrong. If you are presenting this stance as your opinion unless you see sufficient evidence to convince you otherwise, that's fine. Just realize you said stuff like this: On February 21 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
I don't think people can argue against the fact that at the top of the list of a gun's function, there's "shooting at other people" ...which means that your opinion, which you claim you are entitled to (which you are of course), is something that you don't think people can argue against. Then you put the burden of evidence that your subjective opinion isn't infallible... on the other person. If you want to assert your opinion so strongly, don't you want to also have evidence to back it up? I'm guilty of this too although I didn't say things like 'I don't see why people would disagree with me' :p You're allowed to argue when I drool on myself and say "you don't have a case and I'm kind of a big deal". =P I meant to say "toward the top of the list" anyway. Wouldn't you agree?
Yea I wouldn't disagree that killing is at least one of a few major roles of many types of guns. I don't have access to sufficient statistics for this but they would be interesting.
On February 21 2012 04:25 Gentso wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:13 micronesia wrote:On February 21 2012 04:12 Gentso wrote:You haven't identified how you determine what the primary purpose of a tool is Because a gun is defined as a weapon first and foremost. By who? If we are going to classify things we should at least by clear about how and why we are classifying them. Evidence is needed. What are other examples of tools that are weapons first and foremost? What are examples of tools that are often used as weapons, but are not weapons first and foremost? Why the distinction? I'm almost certain that just about every definition of gun there is includes weapon in its primary description. Trying to argue that a gun isn't designed to kill is an incredible reach.
Classifying something as a weapon and saying it's primary purpose is to kill is two different things.
Your only argument you could make is that there are guns out there like a glue gun or staple gun that aren't designed to kill people, fine. On the other hand, the guns being discussed are classified as weapons/firearms by those that make them. Are they made with the primary purpose of killing people? This isn't so simple as it was before things like marksmanship, hunting, etc. The bullets used in them are designed and shaped to penetrate people and armor. Source? I thought bullets where generally designed to exit the gun as efficiently as properly and be as accurate as possible. Obviously some bullets have more stopping power than others, also.
Yes there are specialty rounds (such as anti-material rounds) but I don't think that covers the majority of gun use.
|
Here's a lengthy article about gun ownership and violent crimes that I have posted several times before on several forums. I don't expect anyone to pay attention to it since it's long and no one seems to like reading things that disagree with them.
Violent Crime in Europe and the USA
Violent crime in the US and Europe Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, notwithstanding the much lower levels of gun ownership in those countries.
[a b Kleck, Gary (2004). "Measures of Gun Ownership Levels of Macro-Level Crime and Violence Research". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41: pp. 3-36. NCJ 203876.]
In Britain based on year 2000 statistics supplied by UK Home Office the following percentages of the population of these countries were exposed to crime. Among the countries compared the USA has the lowest number of incidents. The UK and Australia do not allow ownership of handguns. About 3% of the Germany population own firearms.
The lowest rate - for the year 200 period in the USA there were 11,605,751 incidents of reported crime based on a population of 300,000,000 (06) - 3.87% of the population was exposed to crime
Australia which does not allow ownership of handguns had a reported crime rate of 1,431,929 based on a population of 20,000,000 - 7.16% of the population was exposed to crime.
Germany with a population of 82 million (05) has a reported 6.264,723 crimes or 7.64% of the population was exposed to crime.
In Britain there were 5,170,843 incidents of reported crime to the police based on a population of 60, 587,000 (06) - 8.5% of the population was exposed to crime.
Highest rate - New Zealand with a population of 4,000,000 (06) had a reported crime with 427,230 incidents - 10.68% of the population was exposed to crime.
Source - http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Measures_of_Gun_Ownership_Levels_for_Macro-Level_Crime_and_Violence_Research.pdf
|
To add my own opinion on the matter, no I don't believe common folk should be able to own guns. If it were my way, armies wouldn't exist and firearms would be extremely scarce on the global scale. In my perfect world, the only firearms that would be legal would be the non-lethal kind.
|
On February 21 2012 04:28 Gentso wrote:
To add my own opinion on the matter, no I don't believe common folk should be able to own guns. If it were my way, armies wouldn't exist and firearms would be extremely scarce on the global scale. In my perfect world, the only firearms that would be legal would be the non-lethal kind.
lol, armies existed before firearms and they would today if we somehow didn't have firearms =P
They used to bash each other with sharp and blunt weapons and stuff, remember?
|
Politically I should support gun ownership, but in reality I'm really happy knowing no one who has ever been involved in any kind of gun crime. I've only ever seen one once (on police in London) and I quite living somewhere where I don't have to worry if people around me have guns, such that even the police I see don't have one. Seems the more people who have guns, the more likely you are to need a gun for either side of the law.
Then again everything I've said here has already been said millions of times before so it doesn't really matter, and I've provided no solid reasons or evidence to support my preference, but that's how I feel all the same.
|
On February 21 2012 04:27 iplayBANJO wrote:Here's a lengthy article about gun ownership and violent crimes that I have posted several times before on several forums. I don't expect anyone to pay attention to it since it's long and no one seems to like reading things that disagree with them. Show nested quote +Violent Crime in Europe and the USA
Violent crime in the US and Europe Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, notwithstanding the much lower levels of gun ownership in those countries.
[a b Kleck, Gary (2004). "Measures of Gun Ownership Levels of Macro-Level Crime and Violence Research". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41: pp. 3-36. NCJ 203876.]
In Britain based on year 2000 statistics supplied by UK Home Office the following percentages of the population of these countries were exposed to crime. Among the countries compared the USA has the lowest number of incidents. The UK and Australia do not allow ownership of handguns. About 3% of the Germany population own firearms.
The lowest rate - for the year 200 period in the USA there were 11,605,751 incidents of reported crime based on a population of 300,000,000 (06) - 3.87% of the population was exposed to crime
Australia which does not allow ownership of handguns had a reported crime rate of 1,431,929 based on a population of 20,000,000 - 7.16% of the population was exposed to crime.
Germany with a population of 82 million (05) has a reported 6.264,723 crimes or 7.64% of the population was exposed to crime.
In Britain there were 5,170,843 incidents of reported crime to the police based on a population of 60, 587,000 (06) - 8.5% of the population was exposed to crime.
Highest rate - New Zealand with a population of 4,000,000 (06) had a reported crime with 427,230 incidents - 10.68% of the population was exposed to crime.
Source - http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Measures_of_Gun_Ownership_Levels_for_Macro-Level_Crime_and_Violence_Research.pdf
Interesting numbers and study.
|
On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else.
Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental.
Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns.
Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC.
I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK.
|
On February 21 2012 04:30 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:28 Gentso wrote:
To add my own opinion on the matter, no I don't believe common folk should be able to own guns. If it were my way, armies wouldn't exist and firearms would be extremely scarce on the global scale. In my perfect world, the only firearms that would be legal would be the non-lethal kind. lol, armies existed before firearms and they would today if we somehow didn't have firearms =P They used to bash each other with sharp and blunt weapons and stuff, remember?
Ehh, my point isn't so much about the weapons the armies use so much as armies shouldn't exist period. Personally, I feel like in this day in age killing is an archaic form of dominance. Just don't understand how killing can ever be justified anymore, at least in the developed world.
|
On February 21 2012 04:36 Gentso wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:30 Djzapz wrote:On February 21 2012 04:28 Gentso wrote:
To add my own opinion on the matter, no I don't believe common folk should be able to own guns. If it were my way, armies wouldn't exist and firearms would be extremely scarce on the global scale. In my perfect world, the only firearms that would be legal would be the non-lethal kind. lol, armies existed before firearms and they would today if we somehow didn't have firearms =P They used to bash each other with sharp and blunt weapons and stuff, remember? Ehh, my point isn't so much about the weapons the armies use so much as armies shouldn't exist period. Personally, I feel like in this day in age killing is an archaic form of dominance. Just don't understand how killing can ever be justified anymore, at least in the developed world.
=)
|
On February 21 2012 04:27 iplayBANJO wrote:Here's a lengthy article about gun ownership and violent crimes that I have posted several times before on several forums. I don't expect anyone to pay attention to it since it's long and no one seems to like reading things that disagree with them. Show nested quote +Violent Crime in Europe and the USA
Violent crime in the US and Europe Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, notwithstanding the much lower levels of gun ownership in those countries.
[a b Kleck, Gary (2004). "Measures of Gun Ownership Levels of Macro-Level Crime and Violence Research". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41: pp. 3-36. NCJ 203876.]
In Britain based on year 2000 statistics supplied by UK Home Office the following percentages of the population of these countries were exposed to crime. Among the countries compared the USA has the lowest number of incidents. The UK and Australia do not allow ownership of handguns. About 3% of the Germany population own firearms.
The lowest rate - for the year 200 period in the USA there were 11,605,751 incidents of reported crime based on a population of 300,000,000 (06) - 3.87% of the population was exposed to crime
Australia which does not allow ownership of handguns had a reported crime rate of 1,431,929 based on a population of 20,000,000 - 7.16% of the population was exposed to crime.
Germany with a population of 82 million (05) has a reported 6.264,723 crimes or 7.64% of the population was exposed to crime.
In Britain there were 5,170,843 incidents of reported crime to the police based on a population of 60, 587,000 (06) - 8.5% of the population was exposed to crime.
Highest rate - New Zealand with a population of 4,000,000 (06) had a reported crime with 427,230 incidents - 10.68% of the population was exposed to crime.
Source - http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Measures_of_Gun_Ownership_Levels_for_Macro-Level_Crime_and_Violence_Research.pdf
Took the time to read the abstract, conclusion and browse through results, but I don't really see how this invalidates anything people have said so far. The part you quoted is not even IN the article (a pdf search of Germany gives no results, for instance) and the article is a survey of previous articles showing that most of them are bad and the authors could find no correlation between gun ownership and violence. However, this is only in light of the previous researches. I cannot find a good definition of violence, but it seems to be discussing generally violent crimes, which includes at the very least stick-m-ups with knives.
However, I read a report at some point discussing crime statistics, which stated that violent crimes are reported in wildly different ways across different countries. For instance, ripping a purse off someone's shoulder is considered violent in some countries, but not in others.
Most people here were talking about gun ownership being correlated with gun-related violence and I do not see anything in that article to show that that is not true. However, you're also arguing something from about 2 pages ago. Comparing stats from US to Europe is not all that useful, because FAR more than just gun ownership changes between the two regions (and within Europe from country to country). Djzapz made a pretty good post on page 31 about the basic incomparability of these statistics.
|
On February 21 2012 04:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:27 iplayBANJO wrote:Here's a lengthy article about gun ownership and violent crimes that I have posted several times before on several forums. I don't expect anyone to pay attention to it since it's long and no one seems to like reading things that disagree with them. Violent Crime in Europe and the USA
Violent crime in the US and Europe Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, notwithstanding the much lower levels of gun ownership in those countries.
[a b Kleck, Gary (2004). "Measures of Gun Ownership Levels of Macro-Level Crime and Violence Research". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41: pp. 3-36. NCJ 203876.]
In Britain based on year 2000 statistics supplied by UK Home Office the following percentages of the population of these countries were exposed to crime. Among the countries compared the USA has the lowest number of incidents. The UK and Australia do not allow ownership of handguns. About 3% of the Germany population own firearms.
The lowest rate - for the year 200 period in the USA there were 11,605,751 incidents of reported crime based on a population of 300,000,000 (06) - 3.87% of the population was exposed to crime
Australia which does not allow ownership of handguns had a reported crime rate of 1,431,929 based on a population of 20,000,000 - 7.16% of the population was exposed to crime.
Germany with a population of 82 million (05) has a reported 6.264,723 crimes or 7.64% of the population was exposed to crime.
In Britain there were 5,170,843 incidents of reported crime to the police based on a population of 60, 587,000 (06) - 8.5% of the population was exposed to crime.
Highest rate - New Zealand with a population of 4,000,000 (06) had a reported crime with 427,230 incidents - 10.68% of the population was exposed to crime.
Source - http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Measures_of_Gun_Ownership_Levels_for_Macro-Level_Crime_and_Violence_Research.pdf Took the time to read the abstract, conclusion and browse through results, but I don't really see how this invalidates anything people have said so far. The part you quoted is not even IN the article (a pdf search of Germany gives no results, for instance) and the article is a survey of previous articles showing that most of them are bad and the authors could find no correlation between gun ownership and violence. However, this is only in light of the previous researches. I cannot find a good definition of violence, but it seems to be discussing generally violent crimes, which includes at the very least stick-m-ups with knives. However, I read a report at some point discussing crime statistics, which stated that violent crimes are reported in wildly different ways across different countries. For instance, ripping a purse off someone's shoulder is considered violent in some countries, but not in others. Most people here were talking about gun ownership being correlated with gun-related violence and I do not see anything in that article to show that that is not true. However, you're also arguing something from about 2 pages ago. Comparing stats from US to Europe is not all that useful, because FAR more than just gun ownership changes between the two regions (and within Europe from country to country). Djzapz made a pretty good post on page 31 about the basic incomparability of these statistics.
This is on page 30 of the PDF.
"...the best available research indicates that there is no net effect of general (criminal and noncriminal combined) gun ownership on violence rates..."
They further go on to say that, like I've said in the past, there simply are no decent statistics on the subject. Ergo, statistics cannot be used in an argument about guns and their affect on violence rates.
Guys, can we please stop using statistics in this discussion? Both sides have shown time and time again that there are no well-done statistics, so they can't reasonably be used.
Maybe an admin can put a moderator's note suggesting this?
|
On February 21 2012 04:35 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 04:21 Rye. wrote:On February 21 2012 02:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people. I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both. I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms. However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country). How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances? I live in a rural area. Guns in the UK are banned, but there are gun clubs and allowances for shotguns for farms etc.. but there are loads of checks and forms etc.. they're not easy to get. I personally dont need a gun. If someone comes onto my property to steal, i will phone the police. If i need to defend myself, any hard object near by will do. I can be 99.99% sure that the invader will not have a gun. That is how hard it is to get one here. To be honest. It makes me feel safe. I and my family have far more chance of surviving if the invader doesnt have a gun. Your average joe isnt going to be as proficient with a gun as some invader, and its likely the average joe wont be ready for any confrontation, and his gun will be on the top shelf in a cupboard somewhere. This means the invader has the upper hand. By neither party having guns, the chance of surviving is increased. Yeh, they may be able to get away, but so what, you're alive arnt you. Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of UK houses have very solid doors, and UPVC double glazed windows. Smashing a window creates a lot of noise, smashing through the doors is extremely difficult unless you have a police battering ram, and even then, it takes several hits a lot of the time. The walls... well we learned from the tale of the three little pigs. I'd like to see someone smash through my half meter thick solid stone, 300+ yr old walls. An Englishman's home is his castle, good luck laying siege! I do not think people have a right to own a gun. I think they have a right to feeling and being safe. As for evidence.. here... Murders with Firearmsthen compare populations (stats on that site are taken from UN surveys) UK Population = 63 million US Population = 313 Million Murders per person = UK = 1 per 4.5 million US = 1 per 33408 This huge difference says everything. Even if you but some huge error margin on them like 20% On February 21 2012 03:49 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 20:00 Fen2 wrote:On February 20 2012 19:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:On February 20 2012 18:46 eNbee wrote:
It's a hard mindset to shake though to be fair. It seems to be spoon-fed to them from birth (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the idea I get).
The fact of the matter is Europe has stricter gun laws than the United States, and FAR lower murder rates, a quick google search can tell you that.
Apart from gun control I'd like to see an argument made that Western European countries are less "free" than the United States.
If I play devils' advocate here I suppose you can argue that Western Europe is more socialist than the United States, thus more taxed, I guess you can call that less free.
Then again less fortunate people over here are far less chained to debt if they get health issues or hit any kind of bad luck, so you could call that having more "freedom" (I really hate the way this word is thrown around by Americans in office btw).
On Topic :
My stance as far as gun control goes is: owning a gun should be like getting a drivers' license, albeit a more difficult to accrue version. You take classes and (strenuous) tests, if you pass those you get your license and you can own a handgun/hunting rifle. I'm against the general population having easy access to weaponry that can extinguish someone else's life with a single finger movement...
They can act as a deterrent, but we'd all be better off if no one had them and everyone was civil towards each other(fat chance). The united states has a homicide rate that is ~4.5 people per 100,000. European countries have a homicide rate of ~3.5. Switzerland (lax gun laws) has a lower homicide rate than many european countries with strict gun laws. European countries have a violent crimes rate of more than double the United States though. A QUICK google search tells me that you are more than 2x more likely to be injured in european countries than in the united states. I know these facts will just be ignored and overlooked even if I post the sources so if you truly believe me or truly disbelieve search International Homicide Rates and Gun Laws vs Homicide and Violent Crime Rates in google. Just wanted to state these few facts before you spew your biased, misinformed view of things. Thanks. By the way, guns will always be part of the United States just as murder will always be part of the world. I never understand the point of these threads. They really are nothing more than Europe criticizing the United States for everything we do like they have nothing better to do. They act just as ignorant as many Americans do. It's quite funny to have to hear it everyday on the forums that you've gradually developed a dislike of everything they say, regardless of whether it correct or not. They'll be ignored because you're comparing all of Europe with America which is completely unfair. Europe is a continent, not a country. It contains many different countries, some developed and some not so developed. This is a discussion based on developed countries. So congrats, you might have a better homicide rate than a 3rd world country, but guess what? Thats nothing to be proud of, thats expected. The Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateIndicates that West and Central Europe has a 1.2 per 100,000 homicide rate, which is FAR lower than North America's 4.8. EDIT: also please post a source It's more fair to compare all of America to all of Europe than it is to compare the best countries in Europe to all of America. America is a HUGE place with vastly different cultures and socioeconomic conditions in each region. Most European countries are MUCH smaller, only about the size of a single state. It's completely ridiculous to make a comparison like that. If you want to ban guns because of how many innocent people get killed because of them, you should ban alcohol too. Alcohol kills 100k people every year in the US alone. That's 3 times as many as guns. Why no public outcry for banning alcohol from you euro folks? Here's what I think. Alcohol is just as engrained in European culture as it is in American culture. You've grown up used to alcohol, so you're fine with it. Well we've grown up with guns, so we're fine with them. On February 21 2012 03:36 Kaitlin wrote:On February 21 2012 02:56 hitthat wrote:
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted) How does this philosophy work when you factor in your obligation to protect your family? Specifically, wife and children ? Teach them to use guns safely and effectively as well. "The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so." Of course you can compare US to individual countries. US has big cities, UK has big cities, US has rural villages, UK has rural villages. (not just UK, could be germany, france, italy etc.) This is why you need to compare Firearm murders per person. Also, alcohol cant really be used to kill another person. The deaths are self inflicted destruction of ones own body, or an accident when drunk. You cant compare this to someone killing someone else. Does it matter why the people die? The point is, alcohol kills more people than guns. Further, a lot of drunks get violent, so plenty of alcohol related deaths are not accidental. Even gun deaths go down if you remove alcohol, because a significant percent of gun deaths are caused by drunks with guns. Does the UK have big cities as dirt poor as DC, Detroit, or Buffalo? I honestly don't know, but I doubt its as bad, just because its pretty goddamn horrible in Detroit and DC. I would say you could compare UK to a state with a strong economy, say Florida or California, but certainly not the whole US, because there are places with economics more like Mexico than the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
here, gun murders by state. Take your pick. California is awful by the way... most are pretty awful.
and of course it matters why people die, its the whole point. Guns are used by people to kill OTHER people.
My point, which you didnt seem to get, is that alcohol is NOT used by people to kill OTHER people.
It may cause people to get MORE violent, but they need to already be "that kind of person".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
