Gun ban solution to mass murders?

Not YOUR old arguments, 'the same old arguments' - which include the two you made and I highlighted. I'm just questioning why you seem to think the arguments raised here and in other threads are the same old same old - when you are not providing any fresh arguments yourself?

So you are not saying America is a violent society and Americans just want to kill kill kill...but that is the type of attitude of the 'pro-gunners'?

Imho, it's fair to say that a society that has guns as a way of life might also be one that is fearful, and the solution is to meet violence with violence. That goes for teachers to 'gang-bangers'. Does that mean both sets of peoples attitude is as extreme as 'kill, kill, kill' and that both have a 'murderous nature'? I'd say no. It's probably fair to address the sections of society where the gun-crime is prolific, rather than generalise, and treat an entire state or country the same way.

To make your point you chose 'Philly' which has one of the worst murder rates in the whole country. It probably isn't fair to compare there with here, is it?

http://guncrisis.org/

 

OdonII
I’m raising arguments to what many American pro-gunners have said – can you actually address what I’ve raised, in its American context?

I’m pointing out that many pro-gunners seem to believe that the US is a very violent society and that they seem to think that the way to deal with that is through gun ownership.

So in your humble opinion the solution to the US’s problems is to meet violence with violence?

Actually the post is a repeat that comes from another gun thread where someone else brought up Philadelphia.

As to comparing there with here why not - I’m comparing somewhere with gun control measures with somewhere with few gun control measures

 

I'm only commenting on the way you introduced yourself to this thread. It just came across just a tad high and mighty, that's all. Not a huge deal. Moving on.

I gathered that with your second post. The premise of your first post didn't seem to be the same. Although, I can see that you said: 'This is the view of many Americans of their fellow citizens'. Do YOU actually think that?

No. Imho, it is fair to say that if you are carrying a gun you are likely to think it is ok to use deadly violence. If a country has a gun culture it might be fair to say that society prefers to meet violence with violence. I agree that:
They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.
I wouldn't say murder is on the minds of the majority of people on a day to day basis.
Imho, it's more the case, they feel if they need to use deadly violence to protect themselves and their family, they will.
While over here we are more likely to fit CCTV cameras and a solid alarm system.
I'm not sure your theory and mine are two sides of the same coin.

My solution would be to repeal 'the right to bare arms' or atleast define it as not a right for every citizen to carry a gun - which I don't think the original idea was to do. Also try and change the 'pro-gun' attitude of the entire nation (the 'good' people with guns as well as the 'bad' people with guns).

Well, you used figures as an argument rather than gun controls (or the lack of them) - which isn't the same thing.
'Philly' might be an aberration rather than the norm.

 

If someone wants to commit mass murders they don't need a gun or guns. Look at Timothy Mcveigh. Jim Jones. They will find a way if they want to kill.

 

OdonII

LOL – in what way ‘a tad high and mighty’?

Sorry I’m unsure what you are asking?

So in your humble opinion it is not that they fear attack it is just that they feel the need to use deadly violence to protect themselves and their family from attack, because they are afraid they might be attacked so frightened are they that they might be attacked that they feel they need a gun to protect themselves and so they can protect themselves with deadly force.

I said - I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

But let us take an American city - Philadelphia – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

But if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons.

 

OdonII

So your answer is

One - Repeal 'the right to bare arms'

Two - Try and change the 'pro-gun' attitude of the entire nation.

To me you’d have to do two before even trying One, so in what way would you try and do two?

 

Tazer

And again the same the natural born killers argument.

To repeat -

This is the view of many Americans of their fellow citizens - that they’re so violent and murderous that they just want to kill, kill, kill. That its not guns that count for the high level of murders but the murderous nature of Americans, that the same amount of carnage would go on because Americans are so bloodthirsty that they would use anything to kill, kill, kill.

When you think your fellow citizens are like that it is no wonder that so many Americans are so frightened.

But why do they think that is it true?

Are Americans truly that different than other people, so much more violent and murderous?

Now if things are looked at in those terms (that Americans are murderous savages that are just waiting to kill people) then when crime figures are looked at they seem to back up that view.

For example

I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

But let us take an American city - Philadelphia – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

But if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons.

 

Wait, so I am supposed to be buying my guns because I am "frightened"? I've been doing it wrong for all these years then.

 

Sig

I’d ask why are you buying guns?

 

Well, I own my shotgun for waterfowl hunting. I own my Mauser 98k for historical reenactments. My AR and P226 I own because I enjoy shooting them, and they because they are good "just in case" weapons. Looking to get another bolt action rifle for big game hunting, and looking at a Glock as another "just in case" weapon.

Where I live I have never been broken into *knock on wood*, nor have I ever been the victim of a violent crime. Same holds true for all my immediate family as well. Over all, the area I live in is extremely safe.

 

You said: 'Another week another gun thread
And the problem is that the same old arguments come up again and again'.
As if you had some highly original contribution to make, rather than a repeat (albeit more lengthy/detailed) of some of the points that had/have been raised in this thread and others.
Perhaps I'm over stating your slight contempt/attitude.
It was just my initial thought.

Would you go as far as saying: '(Americans are) so violent and murderous that they just want to kill, kill, kill. That its not guns that count for the high level of murders but the murderous nature of Americans'?

I wouldn't know the No.s but: some fear attack from others and/or the government. Guns are used by some to settle perceived and actual disputes (didn't a young girl die because somebody thought the group she was in was a rival gang?, and you only have to read some of the comments here by some that Obama (for e.g) is set out to declare martial law and take away everybody's guns).

But yes, too many would use deadly violence to protect themselves and their family from attack, because they are afraid they might be attacked so frightened are they that they might be attacked that they feel the need for a gun so they can protect themselves and their families with deadly force.

Firearms accounted for 344 death in 2006 in Philadelphia (are you using these figures http://inquirer.philly.com/graphics/murders_map/ ?)
Judging by those No.s you need to target 18-25 year old black males.

It is obvious that the more guns around the more deaths by guns there will be.

On a side note, I found this interesting - if a little disturbing:

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[6] Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths.

Massive crime issues/abandoned communites/ Poverty/Gangs

- the usual suspects.

Well, if you tried one then people would have to argue why they needed a gun, perhaps. But I did say does the constitution actually say EVERYBODY has the right to bare arms?

If I wasn't being serious:
For two, I would remove guns from security guards/ mall cops...then make it a legal requirement they can't dress as if they are police officers.
Then, introduce fishing as a substitute for shooting at deers etc.
Perhaps ban guns from being used within film advertising.
Generally suggest guns are for law enforcement officers.

I don't really know how to copy our attitude to guns over there.
It probably really comes down to educating young people that guns don't solve anything and should not be used as a mark of respect.
But that has been tried over and over again.

 

Admittly....Yeah I'm clueless about guns, don't own one, haven't fired one in 20 years.

Yet I can have an opinion

in New Jersey we have ceded a monopoly of deadly force to law enforcement. Most people here, Dems & Repubs seem happy with that.

It is so crowded here, there is almost no place to hunt and few places to go plinkin.

Seems that illegal pistols are a problem here not rifles. But these guns are illegal already, so posturing on "banning guns" will not help with this.

A few months ago, an ex-con, a parolee was shot by cops after showing a pistol. Refusing to drop it. He was out of jail but a month.

How does somebody on parole get a pistol ?

 

Illegally?

 

Illegally. It also may be relevant that the majority of gunshot victims are criminals themselves. And it's their criminal lifestyle that put them in the position to be who in the first place.

Those who live by the sword die by the sword.

 

Interesting.

 

Sig

I’d ask in case of what?

 

...me too, given: Over all, the area I live in is extremely safe.

 

Letlovin

First I’d ask - are they humans beings? Then I’d ask were they born criminals?

 

In case the area I live it becomes not safe, revolution, and so on. I certainly don't fear a revolution. Nor do I fear my neighborhood becoming unsafe (lots of good, stable families moving in). But, ya never know.

 

Sig

Let’s see you claim not to fear any of these things but you feel you need to have guns to protect you from them, just in case.

Sorry but at some level then you must fear that they might happen, to the point that you have ‘just in case’ guns for that eventuality.

Edit – what kind of ‘revolution’ do you fear?