How To Argue For Gun Control.

[SIZE=12pt]Mac[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

http://www.cdc.gov/n...1/nvsr61_06.pdf

[SIZE=12pt]For fuck sake what is ‘80% of gun homicides’? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I’ve looked through the report you presented and can find no reference to 80% Can you please quote the relevant bit. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And anyway as stated another CDC study seems to refute your claim –[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The most recent Centers for Disease Control study on this subject lends further credence to our claim. It examined five cities that met the criterion for having a high prevalence of gang homicides: Los Angeles, California; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Long Beach, California; Oakland, California; and Newark, New Jersey. In these cities, a total of 856 gang and 2,077 non-gang homicides were identified and included in the analyses. So, even when examining cities with the largest gang problems, gang homicides only accounted for 29 percent of the total for the period under consideration (2003-2008). For the nation as a whole it would be much smaller.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Yes you may believe BUT can you back up this claim? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Anyway to go back this still does not in any way prove your assertion that Americans as a group are more bloodthirsty and violent that other humans and it is that not ease of access to guns that account for such large homicide figures.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

 

But this has consistently been disproved.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262

Again it is another fear and intimidation thing

 

Pen

Why?

The more guns in your society, the greater the likelihood that those guns will fall into the hands of criminals or the irresponsible creating greater fear fuelling the desire for more guns, bigger guns, carry guns everywhere….

I mean in a situation where people don't know who is carrying a concealed weapon or not (legally or illegally) neither do you and you will also know that not all of the carriers are rational and/or responsible

In such a case then game theory would seem to dictate that in any minor dispute it is better to shoot first.

I mean here is another story –

Alan Simons was enjoying a Sunday morning bicycle ride with his family in Asheville, N.C., two years ago when a man in a sport utility vehicle suddenly pulled alongside him and started berating him for riding on the highway.

Mr. Simons, his 4-year-old son strapped in behind him, slowed to a halt. The driver, Charles Diez, an Asheville firefighter, stopped as well. When Mr. Simons walked over, he found himself staring down the barrel of a gun.

“Go ahead, I’ll shoot you,” Mr. Diez said, according to Mr. Simons. “I’ll kill you.”

Mr. Simons turned to leave but heard a deafening bang. A bullet had passed through his bike helmet just above his left ear, barely missing him.

Mr. Diez, as it turned out, was one of more than 240,000 people in North Carolina with a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/more-concealed-guns-and-some-are-in-the-wrong-hands.html?_r=0

And the thing with fear is that it is emotional and can cause people to act irrationally and it can also be based on bias. In such cases little actions could be construed as suspicious and be acted on accordingly.

So as I say this is likely to increase problems not reduce them.

 

First up I should point out that statistically in nearly all developed countries crime seems to be on the wane and nobody seems to know why although there are many theories here are just a few - the reduction of lead in petrol (lead poisoning increase violent behaviour) , women getting more rights and entering the workplace (which some claimed has ‘feminised’ society, calming it) liberal abortion laws. (a theory advanced by the authors of Freakonomics who argued that making it easier to get an abortion has diminished the number of children born into the underclass.) an ageing population (oldies are less violent) even the popularity of computer games (people are getting their aggression out on pixals rather than people).

Even so the general crime figures for the US are roughly the same as many other nations the only really big anomaly is gun related deaths.
Even taking out gun related homicides from the general homicide rate gives a figure for the US that is roughly the same as these European nations (1.2).

Now it is very difficult comparing crime figures form differing countries due to both legal differences and statistical recording methods. For example, the US do not appear to include minor assaults, intimidation,and threats within their definition of violent crime while New Zealand does and these offences comprise nearly half of all violent crime in that country (NZ MoJ). And there are problems with population density the US has a much lower population density overall than in European countries although urban areas can e similar.

But let us do a bit of a broad overview.

Police Recorded Rape Cases per 100,000 Population

US – 28.6

England and Wales -27.7

France 16.2

Germany 8.9

Cases of Robbery per 100,000 Population

US – 133

England and Wales -137

France – 181

Germany – 60

Police Recorded Cases burglary 100,000 population

US – 715

England and Wales - 986

France – 513

Germany - 456

Police Recorded Vehicle Theft Cases per 100,000

US – 258

England and Wales - 215

France – 333

Germany – 106

Number of prisoners per 100,000

US – 716

England and Wales – 148

France – 101

Germany – 80

*

It seems to me that the fear and intimidation based ideas prevalent in the US (largest number of privately owned guns, large prison population) isn’t really working very well.

It hasn’t reduced general crime in any significant way but has lead to much larger numbers of gun related crimes compared with others and all the problems associated with high prison populations

 

You answered your own statement below. Not many people practice open carry even in open carry states.

A lot of them are for more people being armed. My own sheriff is for it.

In Alaska it was. Though what do you mean by common place? Another instance of open carry was in a Wells Fargo bank. A guy walked in with a pistol strapped to his leg. No one made an issue of it.

No it's not. You may have the drop but you don't have the reaction time to respond to 20-30 armed patrons drawing at the same time. You may get away with shooting one or two but you'll be riddled with bullets by the time you seek your next target. Again why don't we hear of shootings taking place in police stations, gun shops, and gun shows?

Home defense, defense against tyranny, hunting, target practice, and any other legal and lawful act.

Here's someone shooting a M4 with a standard mag.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m4smSRz8BYk

Here's the average human reaction time.

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html

 

I misread. I was looking at the homicide rates in general which are lower than England.

All I'm saying is to take that into account.

https://mises.org/blog/gun-control-fails-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada

 

Here's a source.

http://nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

 

Which is given. Countries with more cars tend to have more car deaths.

So why implement any gun control?

We're barely ahead of England who has strict gun control. If gun control makes a difference we should be farther ahead.

England is higher than us.

England is roughly 30% more than us if I got my math correct.

We're only slightly above England and Germany is far worse. Plus most car thefts happens when the owner isn't present so having a gun or not wont help and I'm not about to shoot someone for something covered by my insurance. Now if I'm in the car and he pulls a gun or knife on me then that's a different story. I have no idea what his intentions are.

True though I'm not sure how does that relates.

I'm not so sure. Of the numbers of victims how many of them was armed at the time of the incident is a good question. Plus even if you're right the opposite is true as well. Since gun control doesn't drastically change crime rates then why implement it in the first place?

So? Again the car analogy. If the accidental death rate of a country isn't really affected by car control but car deaths are high does that justify car control?

 

Balbus tldr. I said why.
Ummm I did read the first sentence though. The criminals already have guns. There is no more likelyhood of them getting them than already having them.

I do like how you keep telling me that "this has been said before" I been online for 16 years I know. I have read and heard both sides on every single point. So I am gonna take this opportunity to stop replying on this thread until I read something I haven't read before.

 

Mac

[SIZE=18pt]Gangs and Gun-Related Homicide[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Did you actually read what was in the linked to page? I mean you do know this doesn’t back up your belief that the majority of gun homicides are gang relate. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=12pt]Mac[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Ok this is from the Office of National Statics [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]There is a recorded total figure and it’s not based on conviction as can be seen below [/SIZE]
Of the 518 cases currently recorded as homicide in the year ending March 2015, data on the case outcomes of the principal suspects at 13 November 2015 showed (Appendix Table 2.02 (1.59 Mb Excel sheet)):

• court proceedings had resulted in homicide convictions in 198 cases (38%)
• court proceedings were pending for 173 cases (33%)
• proceedings had been discontinued or not initiated or all suspects had been acquitted in 18 cases (3%)
• suspects had committed suicide in 28 cases (5%)
• no suspects had been charged in connection with 99 cases (19%)

These figures are similar to those published last year for the year ending March 2014, with the exception of cases with no suspects (13%). Analysis of homicide suspects is included in the ‘Suspects’ section of this chapter.
[SIZE=12pt]http://www.ons.gov.uk[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]In fact when the final adjusted figures came out it was slightly higher at [/SIZE]534 (in 2014 it was 537 in 2013 it was 551 in 2012 it was 552)

 

Mac

Oh please not the car thing again….

**


Even taking out gun related homicides from the general homicide rate gives a figure for the US that is roughly the same as these European nations (1.2).

Come on man are you actually reading the posts?

*


Police Recorded Rape Cases per 100,000 Population

US – 28.6

England and Wales -27.7

France 16.2

Germany 8.9

Why? So you’re saying that you thought that having ease of access to guns made rape easier and are surprised it hasn’t? If you’d though that wouldn’t you have been in favour of gun control or did you not care?

The point is many gun advocates say that gun ownership reduces crime so significantly that it outweighs the downside of VASTLY increased gun related crime and homicides.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case

This has been pointed out numerous times to pro-gunners that claimed guns significantly reduce general crime.

*

Number of prisoners per 100,000
US – 716
England and Wales – 148
France – 101
Germany – 80

Then you clearly haven’t been reading the posts in the thread – how are we meant to communicate with you if don’t read the posts.


*

DOESN’T DRASTICALLY CHANGE CRIME RATES – what the fuck are you on – ease of access to guns VASTLY increases gun crime and people DYING in great numbers.


*

 

pen

Honestly 300 words is TOO long for you to read what are you in kindergarten or what?

But it didn’t make sense as I pointed out Oh sorry it was too much for your brain to take in and so you didn’t read it

What – I’m not sure what you are saying – as has been said before - according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

But you have just admitted you don’t read stuff if you think it too long (and 300 words is too much for you it seems) so you probably haven’t actually read a lot.

But even the very small amount you’ve read isn’t the point reading a criticism is easy the real test comes in being able to answer the criticisms in a rational and reasonable manner or if you are unable to do so then to change your ideas accordingly

The problem I have found is that many of those opposing prudent gun control are seemingly unable to do either.

 

just didnt read your post because you repeat yourself like you said you do. if you showed anything new or different i would feel my time was worth it, its not about ability its about priority. you are not a priority to me,. you are pretty much nothing to me. basically you are equal to the mosquito that i had to swat away while laying on the beach enjoying the sun.

 

The separated sentence is what I'm reffering to.

 

Ok.

 

Why? It works especially in this scenario.

Yes. What am I'm missing?

No I'm saying that for your side if gun control works as well as you claim then there should be more of a difference between us and Europe.

It really doesn't matter of the method used to kill. Are you going after knife related crimes and murders? You should be focused on murder and crime in general rather than the method used. If you had a magic wand and made all guns disappear you'll still have roughly the same murder rate but by different methods.

I forgot what you quoted so I'll get to this after I've posted.

I believe they're referring to violent crime and property crime when the owner is present though I can't speak for the entire gun rights community.

I usually read the posts directed to me. Usually I let comments directed to someone else alone unless its something I feel needs a response.

You changed terms. I said "crime", you said "gun crime". There's a difference.

Uh no. What am I'm missing?

Yet we still have a high car death rate. A lot of the regulations if applied to guns won't work and violates the bill of rights.

 

I agree with the camp that says we should place limitations around assault weapons and high capacity magazines, basically banning both entities.

 

Why? Is there evidence that banning such weapons would be affective? Of these two rifles which one is an assault rifle.