• Lenient gun control leads to greater homicide rates.
    400 replies, posted
Hello people, today I will talk to you about the often debated topic of gun control and its many merits. In this thread, I put forward an argument that basically more guns = more homicides. Now I shall be bringing up some assistance with this. Firstly, this: [url]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html[/url] [quote]1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review). Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. 2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide. We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded. 3. Across states, more guns = more homicide Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997). After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide. 4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2) Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.[/quote] It argues that well, more guns will mean greater homicide rates. [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/[/url] Here are some tidbits I would like to quote: [quote]And, not surprisingly, firearm-related deaths are positively correlated with the rates of high school students that carry weapons on school property (.54).[/quote] A map too: [img]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/assets_c/2011/01/preventionEDIT-thumb-600x463-40174.jpg[/img] [quote]The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48). While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.[/quote] I also argue against pro-gun laws being effective: [img]http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/texas.png[/img] When the right to carry law was enacted, gun violence was already in sharp decline, and most of the decline happened before the law was even enacted (with the decline also occurring nationwide, leading me to suspect it didn't actually account for the decrease). With these in mind, I am arguing very strongly that the idea that more guns will mean less murders is simply wrong, and that some measure of gun control is actually needed in place to prevent a rise in murders.
[quote]after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty).[/quote] Gun Control hasn't lead to full-out removal of homicide rates though[this is a case which is argued very often], and in some cases only leads to lower usage of firearms in homicides. When deciding on gun regulations it should be more of an issue regarding, "Will it decrease the overall homicide rate" rather then, "Will it decrease firearm usage in homicides." The later of which has been proven to be true in most senses, but not in the case of overall homicides. Onto the next case regarding we need to regulate firearms to prevent murders... Regulation is key, but not in the sense of going, 'ar15s and ak47 variants are bad. ban all semiautos' we need to be rather looking into mental healthcare, including more over-view of gunshows[ie. ID/Registration when entering and show of item when leaving], and publicizing firearm safety and education. If it makes any correlation, I wouldn't mind saying influencing people to round off their firearms sales[similar to NRA rounding], and proceeds goto education, healthcare, and construction projects in the purchasers local area.
gun control laws only take guns out of the hands of people who obey the law. [editline]10th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;38401101]more over-view of gunshows[ie. ID/Registration when entering and show of item when leaving][/QUOTE] they already do that
I believe this is not the case. In California and especially LA where gun control laws are all over the place the murder rate is still extremely high.
I couldn't agree more. The gun control law in the USA makes it by far too easy for anyone to get firearms. More guns won't help anybody...
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38401123]gun control laws only take guns out of the hands of people who obey the law. [editline]10th November 2012[/editline] they already do that[/QUOTE] Last gunshow I went to[in Arizona] they just asked you to pay five dollars for a ticket and let you in, no ID, nothing. I even walked out with roughly 400 rounds of Mauser 8mm, and an Gew98.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;38401101]Gun Control hasn't lead to full-out removal of homicide rates though[this is a case which is argued very often], and in some cases only leads to lower usage of firearms in homicides. When deciding on gun regulations it should be more of an issue regarding, "Will it decrease the overall homicide rate" rather then, "Will it decrease firearm usage in homicides." The later of which has been proven to be true in most senses, but not in the case of overall homicides. Onto the next case regarding we need to regulate firearms to prevent murders... Regulation is key, but not in the sense of going, 'ar15s and ak47 variants are bad. ban all semiautos' we need to be rather looking into mental healthcare, including more over-view of gunshows[ie. ID/Registration when entering and show of item when leaving], and publicizing firearm safety and education. If it makes any correlation, I wouldn't mind saying influencing people to round off their firearms sales[similar to NRA rounding], and proceeds goto education, healthcare, and construction projects in the purchasers local area.[/QUOTE] Work into improved mental health and education is very much required and will help, but the point being argued is that lenient gun control leads to greater homicide rates. [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38401123]gun control laws only take guns out of the hands of people who obey the law.[/QUOTE] This statement is meaningless, can you expand? [QUOTE=galenmarek;38401155]I believe this is not the case. In California and especially LA where gun control laws are all over the place the murder rate is still extremely high.[/QUOTE] Can you back this up?
Live in Los Angeles for a couple of years, you'll have all the data you'll need :v:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401245]This statement is meaningless, can you expand?[/QUOTE] the definition of criminal is someone who breaks the law. if you don't obey the law, gun control doesn't apply to you. [editline]10th November 2012[/editline] best it'll do is make knives more commonplace in domestic homicides
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38401346]the definition of criminal is someone who breaks the law. if you don't obey the law, gun control doesn't apply to you.[/QUOTE] But I am not arguing in favour of gun control in this instance. I am arguing against lenient gun laws. And surprisingly enough, criminals tend to be arrested.
Switzerland has the most guns per capita in Europe and 4th in the world. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country]Source[/url] Switzerland also has the fewest intentional homicide rate in Europe and one of the lowest in the world. (and not even close to half of that is gun related) [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]Source[/url] Your argument of more guns = more murders has been invalidated.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401375]And surprisingly enough, criminals tend to be arrested.[/QUOTE] so why are people still getting killed? if you're arguing against specifically lenient gun laws you have to be arguing for either strict gun laws or no gun laws. Since you said this: [quote]more guns = more homicides.[/quote] I'm going to assume the former. More guns never leads to more homicide. It never has and never will.
[QUOTE=Robbi;38401388]Switzerland has the most guns per capita in Europe and 4th in the world. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country]Source[/url] Switzerland also has the fewest intentional homicide rate in Europe and one of the lowest in the world. (and not even close to half of that is gun related) [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]Source[/url] Your argument of more guns = more murders has been invalidated.[/QUOTE] Except in this case the majority of the guns used are army or hunting rifles. Both of which are difficult to use in public or in a domestic setting. American homicides tend to be conducted with handguns. [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38401439]so why are people still getting killed?[/QUOTE] Because they get shot by people who own firearms. [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38401439]More guns never leads to more homicide. It never has and never will.[/QUOTE] Ok can you prove this?
Also I'd like to point out that if a criminal is going to get a gun he will get a gun one way or another. If a civilian wants a gun for personal protection he isn't going to get a gun illegally. If a criminal has a chance of being shot by a civilian then it will usually scare them off reducing crime. More strict gun laws only end up badly for civilians. After all, criminals do not care about the law. [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401454]Except in this case the majority of the guns used are army or hunting rifles. Both of which are difficult to use in public or in a domestic setting. American homicides tend to be conducted with handguns.[/QUOTE] So you think it is okay to legalize assault rifle but keep handguns illegal? Sure lets do that. Also I don't see how difficult it is for someone to just walk out with an assault rifle and shoot people, or keep it in their truck.
[QUOTE=Robbi;38401483]Also I'd like to point out that if a criminal is going to get a gun he will get a gun one way or another.[/QUOTE] Yes, but if its harder to find a firearm this makes it more difficult. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401483]If a civilian wants a gun for personal protection he isn't going to get a gun illegally.[/QUOTE] Some can choose to. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401483]If a criminal has a chance of being shot by a civilian then it will usually scare them off reducing crime. More strict gun laws only end up badly for civilians.[/QUOTE] I am not arguing in favour of more strict gun laws, but against lenient ones. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401483]After all, criminals do not care about the law.[/QUOTE] Yes they do. One example with regards to housebreaking. If you break and enter a house, that can carry a more severe penalty than just walking or climbing into a house with an unlocked door or window. There are 2 separate laws in that case, and a criminal will care about which ones they break.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401245] Can you back this up?[/QUOTE] Several people I know being shot also take a walk around the "jungles" and you'll see exactly what I mean. Also take a walk around downtown LA during New Years and it'll sound like a war zone with thousands of guns going off in the ghetto. Gun control is VERY strict in the entire state right down to not being able to order Ammuntion in the mail. Yet somehow it ends up in all the wrong hands. It was all too common for someone in highschool to show up in crutches after being shot. Also any article about Crips, Bloods, MS13, San Fran Triads etc. can back this up if you really want to look. There's WAY too many to cite at once but a good starter would be just to look up the whole Crips vs. Bloods nonsense that's going on 24/7. Edit: also don't think that just because the movies depict everyone with handguns don't think that sawn off shotguns and even the occaisional SMG and assault rifle don't join in the fray every so often. You probably think that all this stuff is just with small pistols from the outside where you are but it's common to hear about things like someone concealing a shotgun or modified rifle.
[QUOTE=Robbi;38401483]So you think it is okay to legalize assault rifle but keep handguns illegal? Sure lets do that.[/QUOTE] I never argued such. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401483]Also I don't see how difficult it is for someone to just walk out with an assault rifle and shoot people, or keep it in their truck.[/QUOTE] Well let us imagine you went to rob somebody with an assault rifle. A rifle is a bit more difficult to keep hidden than a handgun. [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=galenmarek;38401581]Several people I know being shot also take a walk around the "jungles" and you'll see exactly what I mean. Also take a walk around downtown LA during New Years and it'll sound like a war zone with thousands of guns going off in the ghetto. Gun control is VERY strict in the entire state right down to not being able to order Ammuntion in the mail. Yet somehow it ends up in all the wrong hands. It was all too common for someone in highschool to show up in crutches after being shot. Also any article about Crips, Bloods, MS13, San Fran Triads etc. can back this up if you really want to look. There's WAY too many to cite at once but a good starter would be just to look up the whole Crips vs. Bloods nonsense that's going on 24/7.[/QUOTE] Ok can you cite an article? I doubt some of what you are saying.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401574]Yes, but if its harder to find a firearm this makes it more difficult.[/QUOTE] He will still get it. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401574]Some can choose to.[/QUOTE] Then they aren't civilians but criminals. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401574]I am not arguing in favour of more strict gun laws, but against lenient ones. [/QUOTE] Being against lenient ones is arguing for strict ones. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401574]Yes they do. One example with regards to housebreaking. If you break and enter a house, that can carry a more severe penalty than just walking or climbing into a house with an unlocked door or window. There are 2 separate laws in that case, and a criminal will care about which ones they break.[/QUOTE] Yes but if a criminal wants a gun he will get it even if its not legal, or partly legal. Criminals often choose illegal guns due to records and whatnot. [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401593]Well let us imagine you went to rob somebody with an assault rifle. A rifle is a bit more difficult to keep hidden than a handgun.[/QUOTE] So? You can still do it. I can argue the same by saying that I can protect my self a lot better with a pistol than a rifle, do you think I don't deserve protection?
[QUOTE=Robbi;38401614]He will still get it.[/QUOTE] Point is that more criminals will be deterred if it's harder. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401614]Then they aren't civilians but criminals.[/QUOTE] They only become a criminal after committing an act. Criminals are still civilians too. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401614]Being against lenient ones is arguing for strict ones.[/QUOTE] Not at all, it is arguing against lenient ones and not for making laws more strict, just less lenient. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401614]Yes but if a criminal wants a gun he will get it even if its not legal, or partly legal. Criminals often choose illegal guns due to records and whatnot.[/QUOTE] And illegal guns tend to start out as legally manufactured guns. Plus making it more difficult for them to get guns will deter more criminals. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401614]So? You can still do it. I can argue the same by saying that I can protect my self a lot better with a pistol than a rifle, do you think I don't deserve protection?[/QUOTE] Yes but most criminals aren't as stupid or mindless as you make them out to be. You aren't going to use an assault rifle to rob somebody, that's silly.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401666]Point is that more criminals will be deterred if it's harder.[/QUOTE] Yes but ALL civilians will be deterred which gives the criminals upperhand. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401666]They only become a criminal after committing an act. Criminals are still civilians too.[/QUOTE] Yes but thats not what I mean, I mean that a law abiding citizen is not going to get a gun if its illegal. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401666]Not at all, it is arguing against lenient ones and not for making laws more strict, just less lenient.[/QUOTE] But the current gun laws are way too strict anyways (in my country and most of Europe) so you are arguing pro strict. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401666]And illegal guns tend to start out as legally manufactured guns. Plus making it more difficult for them to get guns will deter more criminals.[/QUOTE] Yes, but those guns are rarely manufactured in ones home country, apart from USA. Even then many guns come from Austria, Germany, Russia and other places so by making them strict you are just restricting your law abiding citizens way of personal protection helping criminals do their crime. [editline]11th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401666]Yes but most criminals aren't as stupid or mindless as you make them out to be. You aren't going to use an assault rifle to rob somebody, that's silly.[/QUOTE] But you still CAN and that is what matters. Also who says about robbing? You can go on a killing spree like Breivik or whatever.
[QUOTE=Robbi;38401694]Yes but ALL civilians will be deterred which gives the criminals upperhand.[/QUOTE] And not all civilians buy guns. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401694]Yes but thats not what I mean, I mean that a law abiding citizen is not going to get a gun if its illegal.[/QUOTE] Then gun production drops, followed by the number of guns, and then homicide rates. Everybody wins. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401694]But the current gun laws are way too strict anyways (in my country and most of Europe) so you are arguing pro strict.[/QUOTE] Not at all. If anything, they are too lenient. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401694]Yes, but those guns are rarely manufactured in ones home country, apart from USA. Even then many guns come from Austria, Germany, Russia and other places so by making them strict you are just restricting your law abiding citizens way of personal protection helping criminals do their crime[/QUOTE] By making them strict, gun manufacturers will downsize. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401694]But you still CAN and that is what matters.[/QUOTE] You can, but do people actually do it?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401593] Ok can you cite an article? I doubt some of what you are saying.[/QUOTE] Doubt as you will, most of the more violent things cannot be reported by press due to them wanting to give gang members attention or any sort of fame for what they did. Most gang violence is not reported at all due to this but since you require a source have something from the FBI themselves. I guarantee if you spend even several hours in the middle of Watts you'll change your entire view of the situation and this is I can safely say without a shred of doubt in my mind. Violence is a REAL threat in this city and if you think putting even more laws on this will help you're mistaken. Also we can turn to Mexico where guns are all but outright illegal but I don't think I need to mention the results of what is now happening in most of the country. [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-8/10tbl08ca.xls[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401754]And not all civilians buy guns.[/QUOTE] No but those who want to should be able to. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401754]Then gun production drops, followed by the number of guns, and then homicide rates. Everybody wins.[/QUOTE] Why would gun production drop? They would just find another market. Homicide rates are not related to the number of guns, as I showed above. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401754]Not at all. If anything, they are too lenient.[/QUOTE] Yeah because getting a hunting rifle to shoot reindeer or a pistol to protect your safety is like way lenient man. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401754]By making them strict, gun manufacturers will downsize. [/QUOTE] No, they will just find another market. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401754]You can, but do people actually do it?[/QUOTE] Yes. Breivik, the Batman theatre shooting, the one in Australia a few years ago, etc. Not to mention the Cartels, gangs and whatnot.
[QUOTE=galenmarek;38401766]Doubt as you will, most of the more violent things cannot be reported by press due to them wanting to give gang members attention or any sort of fame for what they did.[/QUOTE] This is why victimization surveys exist. [QUOTE=galenmarek;38401766]Most gang violence is not reported at all due to this but since you require a source have something from the FBI themselves. I guarantee if you spend even several hours in the middle of Watts you'll change your entire view of the situation and this is I can safely say without a shred of doubt in my mind. Violence is a REAL threat in this city and if you think putting even more laws on this will help you're mistaken.[/QUOTE] Laws need to be enforced to be effective. [QUOTE=galenmarek;38401766]Also we can turn to Mexico where guns are all but outright illegal but I don't think I need to mention the results of what is now happening in most of the country.[/QUOTE] Mexico has a rather weak law enforcement system however, and it is riddled with cartels. If less lenient laws meant an increase in violence, then Japan must be a violent country.
[url]http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf[/url] In relation to American studies, they found that higher gun control in many European countries did not, in fact, lead them to have lower murder rates than their immediate neighbours. Dr. John Lott has also done a book called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime][i]More Guns, Less Crime[/i][/url] in which he analyzes the effects of gun control in various states. And as it relates to Canada, there was a study done by a professor at McMaster University, Dr. Caillin Langmann, that concluded the gun laws enacted in 1995 have had absolutely no effect on crime in Canada, the following video is him presenting his data to the Canadian Senate during the debate around ending the Long Gun Registry on March 28th: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mha9JsHwvwA[/media] Start at 9:20 There are also quite a number of gun control arguments put forth in the following PDF: [url]http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf[/url] To contrast your point, as well, you'll notice that after the 1986 ban on automatics in the US, in 1991, the homicide rate due to firearms rose, you'll also notice it rose in that year nationally, until 1994, when it declined until 1999, at which point it has remained relatively steady. The Assault Weapons Ban was enacted in 1994, however in that same year, and 1995, many US States also enacted Concealed Carry Laws, with the national movement for Concealed carry beginning largely in 1989. You'll notice that for the period from 1994-1999, when concealed carry laws were gaining the most traction in the US, homicide rates dropped the sharpest nationally. If indeed access to supposed "assault weapons" was the issue, then after the AWB expired in 2004, we should have seen gun violence and homicide spike to pre-AWB levels, considering everyone is now able to get all the same kinds of guns they could prior to 1994. You'll see that in about 1999, midway through the ban, homicide levels stabilized across much of the US, at this point many stated had enacted CCW laws, and to this day Illinois, with the incredibly violent city of Chicago, is the only state without some form of CCW law. Since the expiry of the AWB, gun laws have actually become more relaxed in nearly every state except California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey, and yet we have seen no jump to former AWB levels of gun violence. Thus it cannot be concluded that the AWB was responsible for the drop in crime, as its repealment would have lead to a spike in crime if that was indeed the case, and we have not seen such a spike. There is no correlation between gun control and gun violence, the 1986 automatics ban had no effect on the homicide levels nationally, and we have not seen a spike in crime due to the repealment of the 1994 AWB in 2004. However, most of the drop in gun violence nationally, while it did happen at the beginning of the AWB, also happened during the time when more states were adopting CCW laws. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif[/img] It is also demonstrated in your sources that the levels of gun violence have more to do with economic disparity, with the poor being more likely to commit crimes, than it does the availability of guns. Not to mention 9 out of the 16 states in your infographic appear to have on-par with average gun death rates despite having some sort of law to "protect children" in place, that being approximately 10-15 per 100,000, again meaning there is no real direct correlation between those laws and firearms deaths. Your data is also provided by the University of Toronto, which I can tell you is, like all Canadian universities, institutionally against gun ownership. Your data also includes acts of self defence in its numbers, as noted in the Atlantic's article, which are not considered to be acts of gun violence, and we note right there skewing of the numbers against states with CCW laws, artificially inflating the numbers. [quote] Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, [B]even acts of self-defense[/B], as well as crimes[/quote] From the data you have provided, there is no significant proof that more gun ownership has lead to more gun deaths, as gun ownership since the 1990s is actually at some of its highest levels now, highest since 1993 per person, according to certain sources, and there are more guns in America now than ever before, but the rate of gun homicides is at the lowest levels since the 1960s. There is estimated to be almost one gun per person in the United States, that's 350 million guns, CNN lists the numbers at 310 million in 2009, and according to the Small Arms Survey in 2007, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people in the US. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/politics/btn-guns-in-america/index.html[/url] [img_thumb]http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/transparency.jpeg[/img_thumb] There just isn't the data to back up your assertion, there are more guns than ever in the US, but less crime, less murders, and gun rights are at a lenient level they haven't been at nationally since before 1986. That assertion is also false when you observe the lack of correlation in countries like Australia, Canada, and Britain between higher rates of gun control and rates of violent crime; the higher gun violence levels in nations with stricter gun control like Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Jamaica, Russia ([url=http://en.rian.ru/papers/20120720/174699079.html]Who is trying to legalize handguns for self defence as a response to violent crime[/url]), and South Africa; and the lack of gun crime in nations somewhat liberal with gun control like Switzerland, Germany, Italy, and Norway.
[QUOTE=Robbi;38401806]No but those who want to should be able to.[/QUOTE] Except in cases where it might be beneficial to restrict them to. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401806]Why would gun production drop? They would just find another market. Homicide rates are not related to the number of guns, as I showed above.[/QUOTE] It is actually related in America. The Swiss utilize assault rifles that are kept in their homes in case they are called for military service. They do not keep guns for personal protection. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401806]Yeah because getting a hunting rifle to shoot reindeer or a pistol to protect your safety is like way lenient man.[/QUOTE] It can be argued that it is too lenient in the case that the pistol usage leads to an increase in homicides. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401806]No, they will just find another market.[/QUOTE] Yes, but it gets harder to get a gun when the number of manufacturers is lower. [QUOTE=Robbi;38401806]Yes. Breivik, the Batman theatre shooting, the one in Australia a few years ago, etc. Not to mention the Cartels, gangs and whatnot.[/QUOTE] And in the case of the cartels, that is poor law enforcement.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401875] It is actually related in America. The Swiss utilize assault rifles that are kept in their homes in case they are called for military service. They do not keep guns for personal protection. [/quote] The knowledge that every able bodied man age 18-35 has a gun, ammo, and knows how to use it is one hell of a deterrent of crime. No criminal is stupid enough to rob a house where he knows there is an assault rifle and someone trained to use it. Also, it is not related, there are more guns in the US than ever before, yet homicides are still down. [quote]It can be argued that it is too lenient in the case that the pistol usage leads to an increase in homicides.[/quote] Source? [quote]Yes, but it gets harder to get a gun when the number of manufacturers is lower.[/quote] You can make a gun and ammo in your garage with parts you can buy at a hardware store, if someone wants a gun, no law will stop them getting one.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401875]Except in cases where it might be beneficial to restrict them to.[/QUOTE] What cases? You are just running in circles. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401875]It is actually related in America. The Swiss utilize assault rifles that are kept in their homes in case they are called for military service. They do not keep guns for personal protection. [/QUOTE] They are allowed to use their guns for personal protection. Nobody is going to break into a home where they have a chance of being shot with an assault rifle, and many do have pistols too. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401875]It can be argued that it is too lenient in the case that the pistol usage leads to an increase in homicides.[/QUOTE] Source? [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401875]Yes, but it gets harder to get a gun when the number of manufacturers is lower.[/QUOTE] Sigh, why would the manufacturers just disappear? There is always a market for guns wether it be civilian or military. Nobody makes guns ONLY for civilians. Not to mention even I know how to make a crude gun and a bullet. If I really wanted to I could just buy the parts and assemble one. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401875]And in the case of the cartels, that is poor law enforcement.[/QUOTE] So? Their [B]VERY[/B] strict gun laws didn't stop them arming in anyway. It's illegal for Mexicans to own any type of gun but they still got them, armed to the teeth. Same for IRA and other factions. The post above just destroyed this entire thread anyways, your argument is very weak here.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38401829]This is why victimization surveys exist. Laws need to be enforced to be effective. Mexico has a rather weak law enforcement system however, and it is riddled with cartels. If less lenient laws meant an increase in violence, then Japan must be a violent country.[/QUOTE] Surveys? You think every single person that got shot is going to take a survey? I don't know a single person that has done that. Not to mention many times they're downright dead and the dead cannot do anything. Laws HAVE been enforced and still nothing has changed. If you think this city has a problem enforcing laws know that the mayor himself is a fomer gang member and wants nothing more to get rid of them. Everything I speak of is from experience. There was a shootout literally in front of my house and I don't think the strict laws helped. Don't even think about bringing Japan into this as well. There is indeed plenty of violence there unless you think Japans recent increase in efforts on cracking down on the Yakuza are just for show. There is gun violence there as well don't forget. In one instance a Yakuza member just waltzed into a hospital and gunned down a man in a hospital bed. Japan is not the pinnacle of peace. Don't even get me started on Hong Kongs notorious Triad violence either who do just fine without guns. Also what country or state are you from? Your views sound like that of someone who has not experienced gun violence first hand with no offence intended.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38401839]Dr. John Lott has also done a book called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime][i]More Guns, Less Crime[/i][/url] in which he analyzes the effects of gun control in various states. And as it relates to Canada, there was a study done by a professor at McMaster University, Dr. Caillin Langmann, that concluded the gun laws enacted in 1995 have had absolutely no effect on crime in Canada, the following video is him presenting his data to the Canadian Senate during the debate around ending the Long Gun Registry on March 28th: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mha9JsHwvwA[/media] Start at 9:20[/QUOTE] Except this guy cherry picked his data and even fabricated some of it: [url]http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.