[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by panicos81

at least you cant charge a cinema or a school with a sword.. well you can but the casualties will be less than lets say an AR-15.....

that depends on who has the ar15

[Id]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

The US has a much larger population than the UK, and more murders, that's true, but the UK has it's fair share of murders as well, like this exceptionally violent one. Mexico has a firearm ban and their violent crime rate is far higher than the US!

4.8 per 100,000 in the US. 1.2 per 100,000 in the UK.

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by Id

4.8 per 100,000 in the US. 1.2 per 100,000 in the UK.

That figure refers to homicide rates not violent crime in general correct? But you have to take into account that the crime/homicide rate in the US relates to our problem with poverty, which leads to crime and gang violence among other things, it's a very complicated issue that goes far beyond gun ownership rights. Look at Mexico, guns are illegal there, yet violent crime and murder are rampant and it is a far more dangerous place to live than the US!

[!JGunz_325]

Originally Posted by ToothDoc

Go watch 13 Assasins. There is a bada$$ scene where the samurai kill 50 other samurai in 1 minute.

Well, in Kill Bill there's a scene where 80 people got killed....by a woman haha

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by kevinbahnz

can we just keep it racial

huh.

[Echo M3]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

That figure refers to homicide rates not violent crime in general correct? But you have to take into account that the crime/homicide rate in the US relates to our problem with poverty, which leads to crime and gang violence among other things, it's a very complicated issue that goes far beyond gun ownership rights. Look at Mexico, guns are illegal there, yet violent crime and murder are rampant and it is a far more dangerous place to live than the US!

I don't agree with that interpretation. I think what it shows is that there are more violent crimes in the UK, but they result in far fewer deaths (per event and overall). The question is, which do you prefer?

There are also questions as to how violent crime is recorded. I've heard that in the UK, they are more likely to record events as violent crime that would not be recorded as such in the US. I don't have any data to back this up, however. The UK is rated above places like Brazil and Russia in violent crime, for instance, which makes no logical sense.

Having said all this, you raise a great point. Poverty and oppression beget crime and violence. Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country, and has a murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000, which is on par with countries like the UK. Which is about 1/4th of the rate in a state like California, which has far more restrictive laws.

What this means is that gun reform alone is not the solution.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

Best argument so far.

hahaha!

[Id]

Originally Posted by Echo M3

I don't agree with that interpretation. I think what it shows is that there are more violent crimes in the UK, but they result in far fewer deaths (per event and overall). The question is, which do you prefer?

There are also questions as to how violent crime is recorded. I've heard that in the UK, they are more likely to record events as violent crime that would not be recorded as such in the US. I don't have any data to back this up, however. The UK is rated above places like Brazil and Russia in violent crime, for instance, which makes no logical sense.

Having said all this, you raise a great point. Poverty and oppression beget crime and violence. Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country, and has a murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000, which is on par with countries like the UK. Which is about 1/4th of the rate in a state like California, which has far more restrictive laws.

What this means is that gun reform alone is not the solution.

It refers to the homicide rate per 100,000 population.

What it shows is that the UK is far above Western and Northern Europe, Australia, NZ etc etc.

Yep, Mexico is worse. But is that really the level that you want to measure yourself against as a nation?

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by Id

Yep, Mexico is worse. But is that really the level that you want to measure yourself against as a nation?

The point is this- gun control didn't work in Mexico, and it will not work in the US either.

[Nate4641]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

The point is this- gun control didn't work in Mexico, and it will not work in the US either.

Depends on the end goal. What if the government wants to disarm all the law abiding people so we all get murdered by gangs and thugs? What if in some secret sub-basement meeting this was the only logical way they came up with to combat over population?!

[Vic311]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

Depends on the end goal. What if the government wants to disarm all the law abiding people so we all get murdered by gangs and thugs? What if in some secret sub-basement meeting this was the only logical way they came up with to combat over population?!

Are you a doomsday prepper?

[Id]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

The point is this- gun control didn't work in Mexico, and it will not work in the US either.

But it is working in the UK where there are are 0.25 gun related deaths per 100,000 head of population against 10.4 in the US.

The next highest developed country on that list is Switzerland with 3.64.

Australia, you know, with quite stringent gun restrictions, is at 1.05

I can clearly see why you are so proud of that. But, jeeze, it ain't as bad as Mexico so it must be fine

[kingofthedemo]

Originally Posted by Id

But it is working in the UK where there are are 0.25 gun related deaths per 100,000 head of population against 10.4 in the US.

The next highest developed country on that list is Switzerland with 3.64.

Australia, you know, with quite stringent gun restrictions, is at 1.05

I can clearly see why you are so proud of that. But, jeeze, it ain't as bad as Mexico so it must be fine

When will you gun control people realize that this isn't the UK! We don't want to give up our right to protect ourselves and we will not, we don't give a shit about your reasons for why we should give up our rights. We don't care what you do in your coutry and you shouldn't try to dictate our behavior either.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Id

But it is working in the UK where there are are 0.25 gun related deaths per 100,000 head of population against 10.4 in the US.

The next highest developed country on that list is Switzerland with 3.64.

Australia, you know, with quite stringent gun restrictions, is at 1.05

I can clearly see why you are so proud of that. But, jeeze, it ain't as bad as Mexico so it must be fine

i believe you may be missing his point. Of the UK, Australia, Switzerland and Mexico; the only one close to having the same social economic deficiencies as the US, resulting in poverty and violence is mexico.

Also, it should be noted, since most who are for gun control believe less guns will result in less gun deaths. When you compare gun homicides to the number of guns in countries, the US has about 38 other countries ahead of it.

If guns are the problem and more guns equal more of a problem then looking at the data in this fashion is applicable. For the most part Homicides per gun coincides with homicides per 100,000 residents. There are some anomalies though. Take Columbia with 51.77 firearm homicides per 100k. They only have 5900 guns per 100k which totals .008775 firearm homicides per gun. Drop to Mexico with 9.88 firearm homicides per 100k. They only have 15,000 guns per 100k which totals .000659 firearm homicides per gun. Australia has the same number of guns per 100k as Mexico, but only have .44 firearm homicides per 100k which gives them only .000029 firearm homicides per gun. The US has 4.14 firearm homicides per 100k but with 88000 guns per 100k that puts us at .000047 firearm homicides per gun. As a side note, the place largely regarded to be the safest place to live in regards to gun violence, Japan only has .02 firearm homicides per 100k. Yet with only 600 guns per 100k that gives them .000033 firearm homicides per gun. Only 5 spots lower than the US.

This bit of data seems to be excluded in all gun homicide comparisons. But when you include it, and you must if your argument is more guns equal more deaths, it paints a pretty different story. Of the 38 countries that rank above the US in Homicides per gun, 23 of them have a lower homicide per 100k figure than the US.

Another interesting fact about homicides per gun is that the 22 countries ranked lower than the US on average represent 20,000 guns per 100k while the 38 countries ranked higher than the US on average only have 10,000 guns per 100k.


I'm not saying that some logical, meaningful changes won't help us get our numbers down. However, the facts seem to contradict the per capita myth that more guns = more gun homicides. And no one seems to care about the facts.

[Id]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

i believe you may be missing his point. Of the UK, Australia, Switzerland and Mexico; the only one close to having the same social economic deficiencies as the US, resulting in poverty and violence is mexico.

Also, it should be noted, since most who are for gun control believe less guns will result in less gun deaths. When you compare gun homicides to the number of guns in countries, the US has about 38 other countries ahead of it.

If guns are the problem and more guns equal more of a problem then looking at the data in this fashion is applicable. For the most part Homicides per gun coincides with homicides per 100,000 residents. There are some anomalies though. Take Columbia with 51.77 firearm homicides per 100k. They only have 5900 guns per 100k which totals .008775 firearm homicides per gun. Drop to Mexico with 9.88 firearm homicides per 100k. They only have 15,000 guns per 100k which totals .000659 firearm homicides per gun. Australia has the same number of guns per 100k as Mexico, but only have .44 firearm homicides per 100k which gives them only .000029 firearm homicides per gun. The US has 4.14 firearm homicides per 100k but with 88000 guns per 100k that puts us at .000047 firearm homicides per gun. As a side note, the place largely regarded to be the safest place to live in regards to gun violence, Japan only has .02 firearm homicides per 100k. Yet with only 600 guns per 100k that gives them .000033 firearm homicides per gun. Only 5 spots lower than the US.

This bit of data seems to be excluded in all gun homicide comparisons. But when you include it, and you must if your argument is more guns equal more deaths, it paints a pretty different story. Of the 38 countries that rank above the US in Homicides per gun, 23 of them have a lower homicide per 100k figure than the US.

Another interesting fact about homicides per gun is that the 22 countries ranked lower than the US on average represent 20,000 guns per 100k while the 38 countries ranked higher than the US on average only have 10,000 guns per 100k.


I'm not saying that some logical, meaningful changes won't help us get our numbers down. However, the facts seem to contradict the per capita myth that more guns = more gun homicides. And no one seems to care about the facts.

Much more detailed maths than I managed.

There appears to be some problems in society that is exacerbated by easy access to guns. UK gangland culture shares a lot of those similarities, but with much harder access to guns, hence you get more stabbings etc. I lived in a housing estate in Salford, a very poor area of Manchester in the North for a while and it is not a good place to be growing up - but there is good education, health and social services in place so there is a bit more hope.

The difference comes down to ease of multiple targets imo.

As I said, I'm a gun owner. I think it is important to have an understanding of guns, knowledge of the limitations of your gun and the mechanics behind the process. But that can be achieved with a .22 much more effectively than a semi.

[Cozy]

Violence with blades has been rife here for years as it is anywhere else. Banning guns has just limited the murder rate here no doubt. Human's are a barbaric species.

[Nate4641]

Originally Posted by Vic311

Are you a doomsday prepper?

No, I'm in the military, everything is already prepped for me, I just like making fun of the conspiracy theorists. I only want firearms for my own personal recreation. In all reality if anything ever happened someone will just give me a select-fire rifle and as much ammo as I can carry. My safes and ammo storage right now would make some of you cry with pure jealousy, I just don't own any of it.

The main thing people need to realize when they look at the crime statistics is culture. Culture (and population) is why we have so many more murders in the U.S. than that of the UK.

[GeeRam]

Originally Posted by Id

But it is working in the UK

No it’s not.

Our ever restrictive firearms laws were knee jerk reactions to TWO events (Hungerford in 1986 and Dunblane in 1996) involving legally held weapons. As a result the laws only addressed legally held weapons, which formed a minute percentage of gun related crime. The restrictive nature of the UK guns laws has had zero impact on gun crime statistics as a whole.

For example, despite the total ban on legal ownership of handguns, imposed under the 1997 Firearms Amendment, research carried out following the implementation of the Act saw a 40 per cent increase in the number of gun crime incidents in the UK...

For 2010/11, 9.3% of all homicides in England and Wales involved the use of a firearm, which was the highest proportion since 2001/2, it was 2.2% for Scotland, this despite the more restrictive laws since 1997.
Also, in England and Wales, handguns (despite being banned) accounted for 44% of all homicides committed, whereas shotguns & rifles (not-self loading or full-auto rifles which were banned in 1987) which can still legally be owned in the UK only accounted for 9% for shotguns and 1% for rifles.
At the same time not unsurprisingly given the gang culture connection, young people are disproportionately the victims of gun crime: 15 to 29-year-olds comprise 20 per cent of the population but were victims in 45 per cent of firearms offences (excluding air weapons) in 2010/11.

Is the UK a safer place because of strict laws on legal ownership?

Not in the least.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Id

Much more detailed maths than I managed.

There appears to be some problems in society that is exacerbated by easy access to guns. UK gangland culture shares a lot of those similarities, but with much harder access to guns, hence you get more stabbings etc. I lived in a housing estate in Salford, a very poor area of Manchester in the North for a while and it is not a good place to be growing up - but there is good education, health and social services in place so there is a bit more hope.

The difference comes down to ease of multiple targets imo.

As I said, I'm a gun owner. I think it is important to have an understanding of guns, knowledge of the limitations of your gun and the mechanics behind the process. But that can be achieved with a .22 much more effectively than a semi.

Yes, no one likes to do the math when it gets in to 6 decimal places, i agree. What the math shows us is that less guns don't always equal less gun homicides. Take the country top on the list, Columbia. Their population is only 15% that of the US. The total amount of guns in their country is 2,714,000. Sounds like a lot but that is only 10% that of the US.... only ten percent.... Yet their total firearm homicides per year is nearly double that of the US.

There are at least 16 other countries which fall into that category of having a fraction of the guns the US has with more firearm homicides. And as mentioned before, 38 other countries where one of their firearms are responsible for more deaths than one firearm in the US. I'm not trying to justify the firearm homicide rate in the US, it's too high. I'm just trying to put things into perspective for those who are for taking up of our guns.

From my previous post, i find the most interesting fact to be; on a list of 60 countries ranked by homicides per firearm, the US ranks just below middle. (38 countries ranked higher and 22 countries ranked lower.) The countries on the bottom portion of the list, (less gun deaths) average double the amount of guns in their country than the countries on the top portion of the list. (more gun deaths)

For those missing the point... the countries with more gun deaths have less guns while the countries with less gun deaths have more guns. Go figure....


It seems that you don't really have a dog in this fight, but these facts prove that having less guns doesn't always mean having less gun related homicides.

And again, i'm not saying that some meaningful legislation can't be introduced to help curb some over all gun violence in America, but simply banning guns because they look scary isn't the solution. I'm not sure if you've been following the other debate threads, but in America, the guns that NY and CA are going after with their bans are responsible for about 60 of the firearms homicides per year. That's 60 out of about 13,000 deaths per year. You said you used to write legislation, does this make sense to you? If you really wanted to reduct gun violence in America, would you start there? If so, why?

[Litos]

i'd rather get shot to death than hacked to death.

takes a while for you to bleed out and die from chunks of your body being sliced....

[Id]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Yes, no one likes to do the math when it gets in to 6 decimal places, i agree. What the math shows us is that less guns don't always equal less gun homicides. Take the country top on the list, Columbia. Their population is only 15% that of the US. The total amount of guns in their country is 2,714,000. Sounds like a lot but that is only 10% that of the US.... only ten percent.... Yet their total firearm homicides per year is nearly double that of the US.

There are at least 16 other countries which fall into that category of having a fraction of the guns the US has with more firearm homicides. And as mentioned before, 38 other countries where one of their firearms are responsible for more deaths than one firearm in the US. I'm not trying to justify the firearm homicide rate in the US, it's too high. I'm just trying to put things into perspective for those who are for taking up of our guns.

From my previous post, i find the most interesting fact to be; on a list of 60 countries ranked by homicides per firearm, the US ranks just below middle. (38 countries ranked higher and 22 countries ranked lower.) The countries on the bottom portion of the list, (less gun deaths) average double the amount of guns in their country than the countries on the top portion of the list. (more gun deaths)

For those missing the point... the countries with more gun deaths have less guns while the countries with less gun deaths have more guns. Go figure....


It seems that you don't really have a dog in this fight, but these facts prove that having less guns doesn't always mean having less gun related homicides.

And again, i'm not saying that some meaningful legislation can't be introduced to help curb some over all gun violence in America, but simply banning guns because they look scary isn't the solution. I'm not sure if you've been following the other debate threads, but in America, the guns that NY and CA are going after with their bans are responsible for about 60 of the firearms homicides per year. That's 60 out of about 13,000 deaths per year. You said you used to write legislation, does this make sense to you? If you really wanted to reduct gun violence in America, would you start there? If so, why?

I'll deal with your last point first. They are going after those because it is an easy and simple political win. It appeals to basic human emotions and therefore doesn't need to make sense.

And it easier to do that than to implement a workable system of restriction, usage, storage and enforcement requirements that would take time, money and effort to put in place.

This kind of cheap politicking is why I left that job.

The issue to me relates to both culture and ease of access. And I don't know what the answer is as the two are so closely interrelated. Why are their so many more spree killings/shooting rampages in the US then in other countries with a similar level of social/economic development.

And that is what the public focuses on. No one cares if a couple of gang members shoot each other.

[scorcherjf]

The problem with looking at a statistic like homicides per firearm is the issue of people with multiple firearms. Most people I know with guns own more than one so this biases the figure downwards lessening the severity. For example if you compared two hypothetical countries each with only 2 people. Country 1 has 2 guns owned by one person and murders the other person in the country that would equate to 1 homicide per 2 guns or 0.5 homicides per gun. Country 2 has 1 gun owned by one person and murders the other person in their country which equates to 1 murder per firearm. Both countries experienced the same murder rate per capita but one has half the rate of homicides per firearm because of multiple firearm ownership. You can't just look at the firearm because someone has to use one to murder someone else but only one - you can't murder someone with more than one gun... at least statistically lol.

Originally Posted by MP0WER

i believe you may be missing his point. Of the UK, Australia, Switzerland and Mexico; the only one close to having the same social economic deficiencies as the US, resulting in poverty and violence is mexico.

Also, it should be noted, since most who are for gun control believe less guns will result in less gun deaths. When you compare gun homicides to the number of guns in countries, the US has about 38 other countries ahead of it.

If guns are the problem and more guns equal more of a problem then looking at the data in this fashion is applicable. For the most part Homicides per gun coincides with homicides per 100,000 residents. There are some anomalies though. Take Columbia with 51.77 firearm homicides per 100k. They only have 5900 guns per 100k which totals .008775 firearm homicides per gun. Drop to Mexico with 9.88 firearm homicides per 100k. They only have 15,000 guns per 100k which totals .000659 firearm homicides per gun. Australia has the same number of guns per 100k as Mexico, but only have .44 firearm homicides per 100k which gives them only .000029 firearm homicides per gun. The US has 4.14 firearm homicides per 100k but with 88000 guns per 100k that puts us at .000047 firearm homicides per gun. As a side note, the place largely regarded to be the safest place to live in regards to gun violence, Japan only has .02 firearm homicides per 100k. Yet with only 600 guns per 100k that gives them .000033 firearm homicides per gun. Only 5 spots lower than the US.

This bit of data seems to be excluded in all gun homicide comparisons. But when you include it, and you must if your argument is more guns equal more deaths, it paints a pretty different story. Of the 38 countries that rank above the US in Homicides per gun, 23 of them have a lower homicide per 100k figure than the US.

Another interesting fact about homicides per gun is that the 22 countries ranked lower than the US on average represent 20,000 guns per 100k while the 38 countries ranked higher than the US on average only have 10,000 guns per 100k.


I'm not saying that some logical, meaningful changes won't help us get our numbers down. However, the facts seem to contradict the per capita myth that more guns = more gun homicides. And no one seems to care about the facts.