[QUOTE=BFG9000;40311922]But incremental restrictions are just as bad, because in the end you're still getting rid of all gun liberties, you're just doing it more slowly and more painfully.
And nothing is saying we HAVE to approach the general reduction of violence by including a ban like this. We could just try and use those other strategies you mentioned that provide a more proactive solution to the problem.[/QUOTE]
No, it isn't just as bad, because it will allow you to see the effects of the measures before you've completely banned firearms. Which means the process can still be reversed with a lesser effect than an outright ban. Nothing says we have to approach the problem this way, and people will debate it like everything else. I'm in favor of trying multiple strategies, including this one.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40308870]No, that is what I said and that is what I meant. Improvised DIY firearms are not nearly as lethal or effective. The two go hand in hand. You concede that real guns have advantages over them. What are the advantages? If, according to you, improvised firearms are not any less lethal or less effective, and in the case of the bang stick cost less than $20 to make, a mere fraction of the price of a factory-made shotgun, then why is anyone using the factory-made shotguns at all? There has to be a reason. If they're just as good and costs next to nothing and you don't need to try to circumvent the legal process to acquire one, then what's the point of criminals using their more-expensive-but-not-any-better counterparts?[/QUOTE]
Stop trying to back pedal. What you said was, "but to pretend that they're nearly as lethal or effective as actual firearms is a joke." Again, the design intention of a firearm is lethality. Whether it be a Remington 870 or a bang stick, both will produce the SAME result.
If your goal is to kill a person, you can do it with either design. If your goal is to be able to fire multiple shots in rapid succession, a true shotgun or rifle has the advantage. If your goal is to be entirely discrete, a bang stick has the advantage. There are multitudes of situations were one thing will have an advantage over the other, BUT this does not change the fact that one is not less lethal or effective as the other because both are capable of dealing a lethal hit.
Why are improvised weapons not used more often? Where is your data that suggests they are not? Improvised firearms have been used by gangs for years. Also, there are varying data ranges every year, but generally 60% to 90% of actual firearms used in crimes are stolen. Why pay $20, when you can steal it for nothing? Very small amounts of crimes are actually committed by weapons obtained through straw purchases or private sales. When criminals are typically asked where they obtain their firearms, around 50% say they purchased it with cash. However, it is often found after investigation that a very large percentage of those firearms were not purchased, they were stolen. For the ones that did purchase them, many of them likely did not have the knowledge of improvised firearms. Improvised firearms have never been a big media focus, for obvious reasons.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40314476]Stop trying to back pedal. What you said was, "but to pretend that they're nearly as lethal or effective as actual firearms is a joke." Again, the design intention of a firearm is lethality. Whether it be a Remington 870 or a bang stick, both will produce the SAME result.
If your goal is to kill a person, you can do it with either design. If your goal is to be able to fire multiple shots in rapid succession, a true shotgun or rifle has the advantage. If your goal is to be entirely discrete, a bang stick has the advantage. There are multitudes of situations were one thing will have an advantage over the other, BUT this does not change the fact that one is not less lethal or effective as the other because both are capable of dealing a lethal hit.
Why are improvised weapons not used more often? Where is your data that suggests they are not? Improvised firearms have been used by gangs for years. Also, there are varying data ranges every year, but generally 60% to 90% of actual firearms used in crimes are stolen. Why pay $20, when you can steal it for nothing? Very small amounts of crimes are actually committed by weapons obtained through straw purchases or private sales. When criminals are typically asked where they obtain their firearms, around 50% say they purchased it with cash. However, it is often found after investigation that a very large percentage of those firearms were not purchased, they were stolen. For the ones that did purchase them, many of them likely did not have the knowledge of improvised firearms. Improvised firearms have never been a big media focus, for obvious reasons.[/QUOTE]
"But Mr. Foster! Those stolen guns still came from a legal source!"
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40308870]
Like I said, I may have been wrong about the rape survivor statistic. I'm going to go back and look at whatever source I looked at before.
I know that crime has slowly declined, but whether or not violent crime would drop even further with a change in gun laws is the question. I would like to see some studies since you brought it up that 1 million US civilians use a gun for self-defense annually. That seems like a pretty high number. A million people, not even a million separate incidents, but a million people? I don't see how you don't see that there might even be a chance that removing guns would reduce overall violent crime, considering firearms are the go-to weapon for that sort of thing and they are as lethal as people can legally get. I certainly am at odds with the idea that they would both receive a major increase. You say that, but I am sure you are also quick to point out that comparing countries with different gun control laws shows little correlation between gun restriction and reduction in violent crime, so you definitely couldn't say that it would receive a "major increase."
But again, as I said, this is why I'm in favor of the incremental reduction of gun rights. It's the fairest way of determining whether gun control actually will have an effect in America.[/QUOTE]
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology stated that the number was as high as 2,500,000.
[url=http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html]Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun[/url] (excuse the awful site) said "about 2.2 million to 2.5 million".
The study which shows the smallest amount of DGUs every year, that I could find, was the National Crime Victimization Survey, saying that the number was around 65,000. Even if the number was this low, about 15.6% of these directly saved a life. That is about 10,000 lives.
Even [I]if[/I] the deaths from legally owned firearms would outnumber the lives saved, you also have to consider the amount of robberies, assaults, rapes and the likes that are stopped because of the deterring factor it carries with it, as well as, as I have said before, the property that would otherwise have been damaged and how the local law enforement has less things to focus on, making their job easier and as such also more efficient.
Per capita firearm ownership rates have risen steadily since 1959 while crime rates have gone up and down depending on economics, drug trafficking innovations, and “get tough” legislation, at least according to [url=http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fdluc98.pdf]Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties[/url]. But it's not only violent crime that has decreased along with an increase in firearms. Homicide and suicide has also been falling I am not saying a correlation has to exist in the form we are discussing, but it's clearly not doing too much wrong.
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/crime2.png[/img]
Another thing to consider is that around 95% of homicides by firearms are gang related. How about taking a closer look at that problem, before you go about disarming the victims?
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/gangs.png[/img]
From: [url=http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf]Homicide trends in the United States[/url].
I am also sorry about the late reply, the day has been quite chaotic for me.
The issue itself is not the GUNS its the hatred culture and mental issues that are rampant in America, all the gang violence among the other out of control criminal activity, the root of the issue with
Americas violent period whatever is the cause for all this hatred and crime needs to be solved.And forcing everyone to own a gun would bring crime down I will point you toward a country that has this Switzerland watch the video not only is everyone required to own a gun, their crime rates are not out of control nor do they have insane gun deaths like America does.
[video=youtube;IaxOZ-fbe6M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaxOZ-fbe6M[/video]
Sorry if this has been noted before; I haven't read each post.
I'd like to bring you to Australia, 1996. There was a mass shooting of 35 people in port arthur, Tasmania. Now, in the 18 years before that incident, there were 13 mass shootings of over 4 people. The then PM, John Howard, introduced heavy gun restrictions, buying back all semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns, which also created an incentive for many people to give all their guns. Since then, there have been no mass shootings, and firearm deaths (including homicides and suicides) as well as armed robberies have dramatically decreased, in in the state of NSW these types of crimes are the lowest they have ever been. This is a good example I give to people who believe gun control would not work. Obviously, there are obvious social differences between the US and Australia; most Americans would not willingly give up their guns (even if they gain money) whereas we saw in Australia many people did. These attitudes would be an obstacle to overcome.
As well as the gun buybacks, the government made it much more difficult for people to get guns. A license would only be given if the police were convinced the citizen in question actually needed a gun. I won't go into it too much, but I believe the dramatically reduced crime rates (of crime involving guns) was a direct cause of the gun controls.
Actually, several times it has been brought up, either in this thread or in others, that the gun control in Australia had no noticeable effect on murder rates, and that assault, rape, and B&E all saw rises following the legislation. Not to mention there's evidence that many Australians simply buried many pistols and rifles rather than hand them in, and that if the buyback hadn't been mandatory; and in my opinion such a threat of "give me your guns for whatever measly amount I'll pay or you'll go to jail" is both disgusting and theft, and these people did not willingly give up their guns as you so imply, they were forced to; many would have kept their guns. Australians have also now purchased enough guns to take the country to known pre-buyback levels of gun ownership, so despite the buyback managing to accomplish nothing, and Australians having just as many guns as they did in 1996, there still has not been another mass shooting.
It's important also to note Australia's gun laws were reactionary and emotional, and that the shooter was mentally ill and acquired his guns illegally.
Well, firstly, the guns were bought back at market price. Not a measly amount. And yes, most people did give their guns that were not made illegal to the government. Voluntarily, of course.
Obviously some people weren't going to be happy about the buyback. My point in the previous post was that this attitude would be far more widespread in America. I'm not saying this plan would work everywhere.
Bryant purchased his guns legally.
The amount of guns in Australia can more than be matched by the population growth. It is also seen that this small increase is due to previous gun owners adding another to their arsenal, rather than keeping the same guns for a number of years. (These two points don't have to be linked). I highly recommend you read this article: [url]http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/guns-policy-saving-lives-20130114-2cpny.html[/url]
Also, you cannot ignore how the mass shooting rate has decreased to 0, as well as the decrease of firearm suicide and homicide rates.
Furthermore, the increase in rape and assault crimes (without a firearm) is explained by the willingness to report it by victims.
If you want, I can argue properly when I get back to my computer later this week, by which time I hopefully won't be sick anymore. It's pretty hard to do it on my phone when I have the flu ;).
[QUOTE=Robertbrownlo;40386151]Also, you can not ignore hoe the mass shooting rate has decreased to 0, as well as the decrease of firearm suicide and homicide rates.[/QUOTE]
He just explained that firearm ownership is now at pre-ban levels.
And I just explained, briefly, why. Take a look at the article I referred to. The comments also give valuable insight into examples of my views.
I support licenses for guns.
I think it should be difficult to obtain a weapon.
[QUOTE=Robertbrownlo;40386151]Well, firstly, the guns were bought back at market price. Not a measly amount. And yes, most people did give their guns that were not made illegal to the government. Voluntarily, of course.[/quote]
And those who were forced by threat of jail time to hand in their semi-autos, were those willing? No, many of the people who handed in their guns were forced to because they'd be arrested otherwise.
[quote]Obviously some people weren't going to be happy about the buyback. My point in the previous post was that this attitude would be far more widespread in America. I'm not saying this plan would work everywhere.[/quote]
Considering it didn't even work there, no, it wouldn't. And it wasn't [i]some[/i] people who weren't happy, it was tens of thousands of Australians who were pissed that the government was forcibly taking their property from them. John Howard has previously said he also supports Australia's lack of a bill of rights:
[quote]Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights,[/quote]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0[/url]
[quote]Bryant purchased his guns legally.[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia] All the firearms he purchased were bought without a Firearms Licence which one must have in order to get any firearms or Ammunition.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29[/url]
No, he didn't buy them legally.
[quote]The amount of guns in Australia can more than be matched by the population growth. It is also seen that this small increase is due to previous gun owners adding another to their arsenal, rather than keeping the same guns for a number of years. (These two points don't have to be linked). I highly recommend you read this article: [url]http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/guns-policy-saving-lives-20130114-2cpny.html[/url][/quote]
And yet it's always the people with these "arsenals" that gun control groups keep trying to say will go commit massacres. Guess that hasn't happened. The article writer also advocates a gun registry, which has internationally been a proven failure, and bases a lot of the article on postulation rather than evidence or fact.
[quote]Also, you cannot ignore how the mass shooting rate has decreased to 0, as well as the decrease of firearm suicide and homicide rates.[/quote]
Suicide rate decline is the only positive thing that I have found from Australian firearm legislation, homicide rates were already declining, and continued to decline at the same rate as they always had been. If gun control had helped, the rate at which homicides were decreasing would have increased. Gun control advocated try to use Canada's declining homicide rate to showcase how the 1995 Firearms Act helped, but homicide rates have been falling at a steady rate since the late 1970s, and gun control has done nothing to accelerate that decline here, nor has it in Australia. Mass shootings are also an aberration, they're neither common nor account for any large portion of yearly homicides in any developed nation. It's also worth noting Britain has had a mass shooting since its strict gun control, Canada's had 3, and there have been several in Germany and France in the last few years.
[quote]Furthermore, the increase in rape and assault crimes (without a firearm) is explained by the willingness to report it by victims.[/quote]
Not necessarily and do you have nay data to back that claim up?
[quote]If you want, I can argue properly when I get back to my computer later this week, by which time I hopefully won't be sick anymore. It's pretty hard to do it on my phone when I have the flu ;).[/QUOTE]
I'm no expert on Australian gun control, I know there was someone who lived in Australia who was much more knowledgeable about the specifics of Australia than I, I mostly know North America, specifically Canada.
I do know, however, that Australia's prominent gun control group has been sued for defamation, and that a judge called its president a zealot.
I think there is a segment of criminals who will find a way to obtain firearms no matter what you do (look at militias in Southeast Asia). The group of people that you want to focus on when it comes to gun control are people who are unbalanced. Not all unbalanced people will successfully pull off a Virginia Tech, or shoot a politician, but they are likely to kill others with firearms. Most shootings are done with firearms that were purchased legally and another chunk of them were purchased by the shooters themselves, so the firearms that level-headed people can trickle into the hands of lunatics. Sweden and Norway are two similar countries in many respects. Norway has more specific laws and more legislation limiting the sale of weapons and has a lower rate of 0.05 gun murder per 100,000 people than Sweden's 0.41 per 100,000 people. Another factor that could be discussed is suicide by pistol and the fact that people are more likely to commit suicide out of the spur of the moment if they have an easy means of doing it. But how to determine that may or may not be difficult.
One idea that I've thought of was to ban weapons with an external magazine, but allow versions of that weapons with an internal magazine or a revolving cylinder to make it difficult to expend a large amount of rounds in a small time frame, but I'm sure how easy that would be to bypass with some sawing.
In a perfect system (which doesn't exist), someone who is a threat can have only the most simple of firearms and people who aren't a threat to anyone can have an Atchisson (I really want an AA-12), but I think we need to find a strategic approach to gun control because I don't think simple policies will solve anything, because simple policies tend not to work.
But if we can, I would like to have as limited gun control as possible, because I do actually like guns. Also, if you are to ban a weapon and seize it from a citizen, you had better pay them back at least an estimate of whatever that firearm cost if it was purchased legally.
[QUOTE=Scoooooby;40386834]I support licenses for guns.
I think it should be difficult to obtain a weapon.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain your logic behind that thinking?
I can do it for you. Society should not enable people to easily acquire a tool meant exclusively for killing things. Can I make one hell of an IED with stuff I have in my home right now? Definitely. But doing so would require a lot more foresight and planning than "Well I'm pissed I'll go shoot up a mall."
Self-defense: Can you do it with a gun? Yep. Will you? Probably not. As much as the pro-gun side likes to say that the gun is the equalizer between a grandma and a 6'2" 200lb thug, it isn't. Grandma isn't likely to kill another human being. It isn't something that can be, or should be, taken lightly, under any circumstances.
[QUOTE=Amokov;40685372]I can do it for you. Society should not enable people to easily acquire a tool meant exclusively for killing things.[/QUOTE]
So rat poison should be restricted, and .22 target rifles legal?
I really hate when people say that we should be restricting objects that are 'designed to kill' or 'meant for killing' because it's clear when they say it that they don't really mean it, or at least that there are concerns beyond just that factor. Not all guns are designed to be used on people, and there are plenty of things designed to kill that we have no trouble coexisting with. What matters is the public danger presented by ownership of these objects, not a classification based on one arbitrary and silly characteristic.
As for grandma and the thug, I bet the thug is a lot less likely to continue the attack on the assumption that grandma won't shoot him, even if she isn't likely to actually kill him. And there are plenty of cases of women and children defending themselves with firearms against physically superior aggressors. You can't just dismiss it with the notion that lots of people aren't willing to kill.
[QUOTE=Amokov;40685372]I can do it for you. Society should not enable people to easily acquire a tool meant exclusively for killing things. Can I make one hell of an IED with stuff I have in my home right now? Definitely. But doing so would require a lot more foresight and planning than "Well I'm pissed I'll go shoot up a mall."
Self-defense: Can you do it with a gun? Yep. Will you? Probably not. As much as the pro-gun side likes to say that the gun is the equalizer between a grandma and a 6'2" 200lb thug, it isn't. Grandma isn't likely to kill another human being. It isn't something that can be, or should be, taken lightly, under any circumstances.[/QUOTE]
Grandma doesn't have to kill the thug for the gun to be the equalizer. If she pulls out her revolver, the thug is probably not gonna want to risk severe bodily harm and/or death to take her purse. Nobody in their right mind wants to kill someone else, but the object of using a gun for self-defense isn't to kill, it's to intimidate. It [i]can[/i] kill if absolutely necessary, but like I said, nobody ever wants it to come to that. Not the criminal, not the citizen.
Escalating the conflict by taking out any weapon you have no intention of using does the opposite. The criminal now must escalate further and faster to avoid harm. The type of criminal who's going to commit crimes where a victim even has the opportunity to pull a gun is too invested in the success of the crime to see if they can run faster than a bullet, as it were.
As for the rat poison remark, did you read past the first sentence? I recognize large amounts of damage could be inflicted with household items. But it should require a good amount of energy to inflict a large amount of damage, not just a credit card and proof of age.
[QUOTE=Amokov;40696641]Escalating the conflict by taking out any weapon you have no intention of using does the opposite. The criminal now must escalate further and faster to avoid harm. The type of criminal who's going to commit crimes where a victim even has the opportunity to pull a gun is too invested in the success of the crime to see if they can run faster than a bullet, as it were.[/QUOTE]
Do you have even a shred of evidence to back this up?
[QUOTE=Amokov;40696641]As for the rat poison remark, did you read past the first sentence?[/QUOTE]
Yes I did, but you apparently didn't read past [I]my[/I] first sentence, because what you said here:
[QUOTE=Amokov;40696641]I recognize large amounts of damage could be inflicted with household items. But it should require a good amount of energy to inflict a large amount of damage, not just a credit card and proof of age.[/QUOTE]
perfectly matches what I said here:
[quote]I really hate when people say that we should be restricting objects that are 'designed to kill' or 'meant for killing' because it's clear when they say it that they don't really mean it, [B]or at least that there are concerns beyond just that factor[/B]. Not all guns are designed to be used on people, and there are plenty of things designed to kill that we have no trouble coexisting with.[/quote]
You said society should not enable people to easily acquire a tool meant exclusively for killing things, and unless you're saying you want rat poison banned but .22 rifles are alright, that statement is bullshit and you yourself don't even believe it. Nobody really cares about whether a gun is 'designed to kill' and nobody really cares that disinfectants and mousetraps are 'designed to kill'. It's a completely useless, arbitrary characteristic.
But people say it anyways, because 'society should not enable people to easily acquire a tool capable of being used against other people to great effect in a capacity not outweighed by its legitimate uses' doesn't have the same ring to it, and that statement can't pretend that things are so black and white that you can point to one single characteristic and use it for bans.
In the real world, there are tools meant for killing that pose no danger to humans (antibiotics), tools meant for killing that pose much danger to humans but perfectly legitimate uses anyways (captive bolt guns), tools meant [I]not[/I] for killing that can be extremely dangerous to humans (cars), and so on and so on. What matters is the public benefit of the object being legal versus the public benefit of it being illegal, not any arbitrary characteristic of its design, and so gun control advocates need to demonstrate the public benefit of a gun ban, not appeal to sensationalist concepts like 'DESIGNED TO MURDER!'.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40700290]Do you have even a shred of evidence to back this up?
[/QUOTE]
I need evidence to prove that when one person gets a gun pulled on them they're likely to respond to the heightened threat?
I'm not even sure why we're arguing the latter, you clearly understood what the phrase meant, and even why I did it. I suppose I should be more clear when I use generalities like that.
[QUOTE=Amokov;40701716]I need evidence to prove that when one person gets a gun pulled on them they're likely to respond to the heightened threat?[/QUOTE]
You said:
[quote]The type of criminal who's going to commit crimes where a victim even has the opportunity to pull a gun is too invested in the success of the crime to see if they can run faster than a bullet, as it were.[/quote]
Which contradicts basic self-defense knowledge which is that the vast majority of criminals are looking for easy money, not a fight, and will back off as soon as their own life is in danger, as in home defense where the mere sound of a weapon being loaded tends to scare off most intruders. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a burglar who would hear a shotgun being cocked and say to himself 'I should go find this guy and kill him rather than leave'.
Put that same shotgun in his face, he's suddenly a whole let less inclined to try fleeing and a whole lot more inclined to fight.
[QUOTE=Amokov;40706720]Put that same shotgun in his face, he's suddenly a whole let less inclined to try fleeing and a whole lot more inclined to fight.[/QUOTE]
Like this guy, who started fleeing before his would-be victim even had control of the shotgun?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d804Fk6aUf8[/media]
And seriously, I'm not asking for much- give me some evidence that most criminals, when having a gun pointed in their face, are more likely to try to fight and risk being shot and killed over fleeing or backing down. If it's as commonplace as your sweeping assertions indicate it shouldn't be that hard.
Living in Iceland where reindeer run wild in the East and polar bears show up accidentally up north you're bound to find a bit of guns.
Here we have very strict rules and regulations about guns, yet I remember reading an article that said that we are the 5th highest ranking nation when it comes to guns people own per capita. You have to have your guns locked in a cabinet seperate from the ammo which should be in a different room altogether. You should not have your key to said gun closet in that room either and the only guns that are legal are rifles and shotguns.
Yet, we have so little violent crime (I'm running off a bit, but it comes into play here) on our little island. In this article I remember reading about how Iceland doesn't really have a class system and most people think of each other as equals. The president and people of power are never seen with bodyguards and everything is generally safe here. There's usually 1-2 murders a year and usually never with a gun. Police aren't even aloud to bear arms except for our special forces (called Vikings) which are almost never called out.
I don't think everyone has the right to bear arms in all honesty. You have to go through a written test and, if I remember correctly, a psychiatrist to be able to get a gun license. Your family history is looked at and if everything checks out, you're mentally stable and are aware of gun safety then you should be fine. That in all honesty is very comforting to me, knowing that our government refuses to let any average joe have a gun and shoot as he pleases.
[QUOTE=Amokov;40706720]Put that same shotgun in his face, he's suddenly a whole let less inclined to try fleeing and a whole lot more inclined to fight.[/QUOTE]
Put yourself in this hypothetical criminal's shoes. You've just broken into someone's house to find some easy stuff to steal because one of your pals told you the owner was an easy mark. Now, you break in, and the homeowner comes down the stairs with a shotgun. You have a small knife in your pocket, he has a shotgun pointed at your face. Are you more likely to bum-rush him and risk serious injury and/or death over some cash, or just run away?
[QUOTE=catbarf;40706744]Like this guy, who started fleeing before his would-be victim even had control of the shotgun?[/QUOTE]
That video shows someone getting a shotgun in their face, then fighting instead of running, backing up the very argument you just tried to disprove
Countries with strict gun laws have an insane amount less accidents than countries with gun laws like America.
Come on, why? Freedom =/= giving everyone lethal weapons
[QUOTE=my_hat_stinks;40721114]That video shows someone getting a shotgun in their face, then fighting instead of running, backing up the very argument you just tried to disprove[/QUOTE]
I was expecting someone to say this. The difference is that one is a victim, and the other is an assailant, likely already a criminal.
A victim may not want to be victimized because he has something to lose. His choice is don't fight and be robbed (or worse), or fight and risk himself. You can shoot someone in self-defense and the courts will let you off the hook, because it's self-defense.
The robber's choice is to flee and lose nothing, or to fight and not only risk his life, but also risk committing a much greater crime. When a home invader hears a shotgun being cocked, he knows his choices are to either leave the house or fight the guy carrying the shotgun. If he wins, he'll have committed murder. If he loses, he'll be dead or injured.
So put more simply, an innocent being robbed has these choices:
-Don't fight, lose money (or worse)
-Fight, risk life if he loses
Whereas a criminal having a gun pulled on him has these choices:
-Don't fight, lose nothing
-Fight, risk life if he loses, risk committing a much greater crime if he wins
It's not the same between the two. Most criminals are looking for easy money, like the guy in the video. As soon as the would-be victim stops playing along, he's out of there. The idea that most criminals would willingly try to escalate robbery to murder if the victim pulls a gun on them is absurd.
[QUOTE=Fabiolous;40723097]Countries with strict gun laws have an insane amount less accidents than countries with gun laws like America.[/QUOTE]
That's tautological. I could point out that countries that don't have swimming pools have far fewer accidents involving pools than countries that don't, but it doesn't prove anything or indicate that swimming pools should be banned. Of course a country with guns is going to have more accidents involving guns, but can you prove that they occur with an unacceptable rate of incidence relative to their societal impact? And what about countries that already have lots of guns, but try to ban them with restrictive laws- how many gun accidents occur in Mexico?
[QUOTE=Fabiolous;40723097]Countries with strict gun laws have an insane amount less accidents than countries with gun laws like America.
Come on, why? Freedom =/= giving everyone lethal weapons[/QUOTE]
In the UK there is roughly 2,000 violent crimes committed per 100,000 people.
In the US there is roughly 500 violent crimes committed per 100,000 people.
Also, Switzerland.
The logic that less guns means less crime is flawed, and it has always been flawed. Will there be less crimes committed WITH guns? Probably. Will there be less crimes committed overall? Unlikely. Crimes are not dependent on guns, and they never have been. Do they make committing a criminal act easier? Yes, but they are not dependent on it. In the United States, in 2009, 57.4% of robberies were committed without the use of firearms.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40766125]In the UK there is roughly 2,000 violent crimes committed per 100,000 people.
In the US there is roughly 500 violent crimes committed per 100,000 people.
[/QUOTE]
Violent crime is defined differently in the UK. It's not fair to compare the statistics. The UK has a broader definition of violent crime.
Although, it is a fact that there has been a steady decrease of violent crime in the United States.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
