I am assuming, you leave me with no choice since you provide nothing but a link, that you are referring to this: The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. What is homicide? What do they mean by "presence"? Is this lawful gun ownership, or unlawful gun possession in the home?
Studies show that having a gun inside your home actually increases the chance of homicide and suicide.
What study? The weapon of choice for suicides is a gun because it is so effective. The gun is not causing the depression that leads to the suicide anymore than the Golden Gate Bridge.
Thats why they are putting a net under the Golden Gate Bridge. What would you want to have more? A greater chance of being able to kill yourself in your own home, or being a greater victim of a break-in because the criminal doesn't fear retaliation. I am pretty sure the increase in suicide related deaths because a gun is in the home is less then the number of crimes committed because of anti-gun regulation.
I am assuming, you leave me with no choice since you provide nothing but a link, that you are referring to this: The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. What is homicide? What do they mean by "presence"? Is this lawful gun ownership, or unlawful gun possession in the home?
It is so vague that it is meaningless.
Can you do any better?
It's nog vague at all, you're just trying to find excuses so you don't have to accept the truth.
I am assuming, you leave me with no choice since you provide nothing but a link, that you are referring to this: The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. What is homicide? What do they mean by "presence"? Is this lawful gun ownership, or unlawful gun possession in the home?
It is so vague that it is meaningless.
Can you do any better?
It's nog vague at all, you're just trying to find excuses so you don't have to accept the truth.
Do you really accept that sentence as "the truth"? Really? I mean . . . really?
I am assuming, you leave me with no choice since you provide nothing but a link, that you are referring to this: The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. What is homicide? What do they mean by "presence"? Is this lawful gun ownership, or unlawful gun possession in the home?
It is so vague that it is meaningless.
Can you do any better?
It's nog vague at all, you're just trying to find excuses so you don't have to accept the truth.
Do you really accept that sentence as "the truth"? Really? I mean . . . really?
You are smarter than that.
Yes I do accept it as truth because there are more sources that point out the dangers.
Lets look at the numbers of handgun murders in 2004:
if someone wants to end their own life .... why should we stop them? It's their choice to do it, and if they were completely set on doing it, they dont just need a gun to do it. I know this sounds a bit over the top but why not outlaw knives as well since those can be used as well to kill yourself.
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
if someone wants to end their own life .... why should we stop them? It's their choice to do it, and if they were completely set on doing it, they dont just need a gun to do it. I know this sounds a bit over the top but why not outlaw knives as well since those can be used as well to kill yourself.
Because trying to butter bread without a knife can be difficult. Ever tried buttering your bread with a gun?
But to be a bit more serious, Knives can be used to kill yourself, absolutely. But I think it takes a lot more nerve to kill yourself with a knife than it does with a gun. Knives also have a lot of other uses that justify having one (or more) guns don't. They are only there to kill.
I think you're right in that somebody has the right to end their own life, but on the other hand, people who were stopped from commiting suicide are often thankful for that. People who want to commit suicide are often depressed and have an incorrect view on their situation, so the question is: Are these people responsible enough to judge over their own life?
if someone wants to end their own life .... why should we stop them? It's their choice to do it, and if they were completely set on doing it, they dont just need a gun to do it. I know this sounds a bit over the top but why not outlaw knives as well since those can be used as well to kill yourself.
Because trying to butter bread without a knife can be difficult. Ever tried buttering your bread with a gun?
Yes I do accept it as truth because there are more sources that point out the dangers.
Lets look at the numbers of handgun murders in 2004: 5 people in New Zealand
37 people in Sweden
56 people in Australia
184 people in Canada
19 people in Japan
73 people in the UK
11,344 people in the United States
At this point, however, I am confused. Are we saying the "presence" of a gun in the home leads to homicide, or are we talking about different cultures and their guns?
I just want to make sure we are on the same page. Guns deter a lot of violence and crime, especially homicide. It is the brandishing of a weapon that is difficult to measure that prevents rapes, thefts, murders, robberies, home invasions, and so on and so forth.
Yes I do accept it as truth because there are more sources that point out the dangers.
Lets look at the numbers of handgun murders in 2004: 5 people in New Zealand
37 people in Sweden
56 people in Australia
184 people in Canada
19 people in Japan
73 people in the UK
11,344 people in the United States
At this point, however, I am confused. Are we saying the "presence" of a gun in the home leads to homicide, or are we talking about different cultures and their guns?
I just want to make sure we are on the same page. Guns deter a lot of violence and crime, especially homicide. It is the brandishing of a weapon that is difficult to measure that prevents rapes, thefts, murders, robberies, home invasions, and so on and so forth.
Yes I'd also like clarification about the term used... "Presence". Presence simply means it being there, unless it is somehow defined otherwise. If we're talking objects present at a scene of crime or suicide etc, then a househeld stove's presence is the leading commonality for an object present at the scene.
Ban guns to prevent suicide... yeah, that's a great argument.
Suicide will go down when guns are gone, right. Then more people will jump off bridges and run into traffic or take pills, etc.
Get real man.
The numbers say that suicide is going down, not just suicide by a gun.
Just because a person is capable of suicide by a gun doesn't mean that person is also capable of jumping off a bridge or to run into traffic.
Also, presence is clearly the presence of a gun in the home. In other words, when you have a gun in your home, you increase the chance of homicide.
Just so we get this out of the way because I know this misconception is about to come up, no, the increase in homicide is not because robbers and thieves are shot. The people more likely to get shot inside the house are friends and relatives.
Ban guns to prevent suicide... yeah, that's a great argument.
Suicide will go down when guns are gone, right. Then more people will jump off bridges and run into traffic or take pills, etc.
Get real man.
The numbers say that suicide is going down, not just suicide by gun violence.
Just because a person is capable of suicide by a gun doesn't mean that person is also capable of jumping off a bridge or to run into traffic.
Also, presence is clearly the presence of a gun in the home. In other words, when you have a gun in your home, you increase the chance of homicide.
Maybe so, but not where I'm from. The presence of a gun may increase the "chance" of homicide, but it also decreases the "chance" that someone will break in and murder/rape your family when they're on a narcotics bender.
I've never, ever, been concerned for my own safety due to the "presence" of a gun, anywhere. Walking down the street increases the likelihood that you die a painful, sudden death due to an automobile collision, rather than decreasing the risk when you sit in your home.
Which is why I'm more wary of trivial things that we take for granted. Like cars, electrical appliances, tools and the abundance of pharmaceutical narcotics and/or the mixing of the four mentions.
Ban guns to prevent suicide... yeah, that's a great argument.
Suicide will go down when guns are gone, right. Then more people will jump off bridges and run into traffic or take pills, etc.
Get real man.
The numbers say that suicide is going down, not just suicide by gun violence.
Just because a person is capable of suicide by a gun doesn't mean that person is also capable of jumping off a bridge or to run into traffic.
Also, presence is clearly the presence of a gun in the home. In other words, when you have a gun in your home, you increase the chance of homicide.
Maybe so, but not where I'm from. The presence of a gun may increase the "chance" of homicide, but it also decreases the "chance" that someone will break in and murder/rape your family when they're on a narcotics bender.
I've never, ever, been concerned for my own safety due to the "presence" of a gun, anywhere. Walking down the street increases the likelihood that you die a painful, sudden death due to an automobile collision, rather than decreasing the risk when you sit in your home.
Which is why I'm more wary of trivial things that we take for granted. Like cars, electrical appliances, tools and the abundance of pharmaceutical narcotics and/or the mixing of the four mentions.
I don't think that guns is going to stop someone from breaking in. The chance you actually have your gun near you when that happens is pretty slim. When you do actually have your gun with you, i think a robber is more likely to shoot when you threaten him with a gun, but these are assumptions on my part and I don't have evidence to back it up.
I don't think that guns is going to stop someone from breaking in. The chance you actually have your gun near you when that happens is pretty slim. When you do actually have your gun with you, i think a robber is more likely to shoot when you threaten him with a gun, but these are assumptions on my part and I don't have evidence to back it up.
I doubt the people who own a handgun for protection are going to be threating a robber with it.
I don't think that guns is going to stop someone from breaking in. The chance you actually have your gun near you when that happens is pretty slim. When you do actually have your gun with you, i think a robber is more likely to shoot when you threaten him with a gun, but these are assumptions on my part and I don't have evidence to back it up.
I doubt the people who own a handgun for protection are going to be threating a robber with it.
I disagree, owning a gun and actually shooting at another person are two very different things.
Ban guns to prevent suicide... yeah, that's a great argument.
Suicide will go down when guns are gone, right. Then more people will jump off bridges and run into traffic or take pills, etc.
Get real man.
The numbers say that suicide is going down, not just suicide by a gun.
Just because a person is capable of suicide by a gun doesn't mean that person is also capable of jumping off a bridge or to run into traffic.
Also, presence is clearly the presence of a gun in the home. In other words, when you have a gun in your home, you increase the chance of homicide.
Just so we get this out of the way because I know this misconception is about to come up, no, the increase in homicide is not because robbers and thieves are shot. The people more likely to get shot inside the house are friends and relatives.
Or Survival....
Do you have a police station and a sheriff office within 3 minutes normal drive time of your house? Ever have a neighbor go postal for no reason with a illegally owned AK-47? You know what saved mine and 4 other peoples lives that day? Wasn't the police I assure you. It was the fact that this dumbass didn't kill us right from the word go. He fucked up and in a matter of 30 seconds put is life legally in our hands when we armed ourselves. After we were armed and 4 of us had beads on him 1 person called 911 only to argue with the dumb bitch over if it was or was not bursts from an AK-47 that she was listening to. They argued for 10 minutes plus and the whole time this guys spraying rounds in the air. "That doesn't sound like an AK-47 to me sir." The gunman was 30 - 40 feet from the phone, bursts of 7.62's didn't sound anything like firecrackers even over a phone at that distance. I also assure you the caller (friend) was also speaking calm and clear.
30 minutes later (note the distance mentioned earlier) a cop shows up to investigate a prank caller and is dumb founded when he was walking towards us he steps on a pile of 7.62 casings. The gunman had spent 3 clips and run off. But I assure you he knew once we armed ourselves he was a dead man if he lowered the barrel of his weapon in our direction. None of us had to say a word to him and we didn't we laid in the prone position and watched him. Long story short the neighbor never lowered the barrel of his weapon at us and we let him live. Thankfully it was possible for us to arm ourselves considering the events that were about to follow. The operator didn't have a job after that and to this day she would be the only woman that if I were to ever meet I would kick her fucking teeth in.
I assure you I am not making this up to support anything. I am not against stricter requirements for owning weapons. "I" as a gun owner have and would jump through whatever hoops I have to jump through to legally own my weapons. Big brother already has me in their system (a list)because of previous employment and training (nothing bad). Adding me to another list or whatever doesn't bother me one bit. I am no danger to anyone else except when my life without any doubt is in danger and even then I show restraint until it is absolutely necessary. My friends who are legal gun owners as well have the same frame of mind as myself. If you are scared and/or wanting to save owners like myself from myself (legal owners) who obey all the laws put in place and are responsible human beings then you would be better off spending your time concerned about other things.
I don't think that guns is going to stop someone from breaking in. The chance you actually have your gun near you when that happens is pretty slim. When you do actually have your gun with you, i think a robber is more likely to shoot when you threaten him with a gun, but these are assumptions on my part and I don't have evidence to back it up.
Well, I'd like to address a few things you've said. I don't really have strong feelings on the debate, but I feel two things need to be cleared up factually.
First, the suicide issue. You've essentially fallen into the trap of linking correlation with causation, which you can't do without further study addressing the new proposition you're making. Let me lay out a few facts (at least in the United States) for you to consider.
1. Women are a lot more likely to attempt suicide.
2. Men are a lot more likely to actually complete a suicide attempt and kill themselves.
3. The reason this is true is (partially) because men typically pick far more effective suicide methods.
I imagine the latter facts are true across in the board in most Western nations, even those with incredibly stringent gun control laws, so your idea of guns being a contributor might not be too strong. The reason guns are used so often in America is because they're available and effective. In the absence of guns, men often find other ways to kill themselves that are equally effective.
The second is the idea of "the robber will just shoot you". A lot of people have misconceptions because their only dealings with firearms or combat is in Call of Duty. In reality, in any tactical situation where you're assaulting a building, be it MOUT or a home invasion, unless you act with both surprise and extreme speed, the defending party has a huge, massive advantage. This is why MOUT emphasizes speed and most modern militaries will simply blow up a building if a standoff has been reached, rather than push to invade it on foot. This is also why SWAT goes in with what seems like excessive force. It's not because these groups are assholes or prefer overkill. It's because that's what you need to do. So somebody with any form of early warning system (even a mediocre alarm system today can detect broken windows, etc.) actually has a pretty huge advantage over a home invader.
Finally, you really need to realize that gun control is as much a cultural and social issue as a political one. In your country, gun control may be fine because wealth distribution is a lot more even. In this country, I'm fairly certain there are areas where, if I forced you to live there, you would go and buy a weapon to protect yourself. I'm not joking. It's a huge disconnect between one part of the country and another here. On one hand, you can live in a suburb where one murder is huge news. On the other hand, if I dropped you into the middle of Richmond, Oakland, or Compton, a murder wouldn't even make the news unless it was a middle class white person. These things are not because of lack of gun control. They're because of poverty, proliferation of organized crime, drug trafficking, and numerous other issues. Go look it up. Compare the crime rates of the city you live in to the crime rates of a place like Compton, Richmond, etc. Remember that California has the harshest gun control laws in the US.
Yes I do accept it as truth because there are more sources that point out the dangers.
Lets look at the numbers of handgun murders in 2004: 5 people in New Zealand
37 people in Sweden
56 people in Australia
184 people in Canada
19 people in Japan
73 people in the UK
11,344 people in the United States
Your post is a little deceptive. Use per capita numbers. After all the population in the US is over 300 million. You would have a difficult time fitting 300 million people in Sweden.
New Zealand 2.0
Sweden 2.64
Australia 1.45
Canada 2.05
Japan 0.64
United Kingdom 2.03 (2002 numbers)
United States 5.6
Added to the list:
Russia 25
Mexico 10.6
Norway 0.78
Switzerland 2.94 (2004 numbers)
I don't think there is any correlation between Gun Control and decreased homicides.
Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand have pretty similiar gun control that limits possession the size, makes age restrictions, and the need to register. New Zealand and Sweden also do not allow owning guns for self-defense and you have to be 18. Canada you can have a gun as young as 12 or younger in special circumstances, but you cannot directly buy a gun. Since the gun laws in Canada where made more strict in 1970, the homicide rate has slightly decreased. New Zealand and Sweden did not show signs of change in crime rate with stricter gun control.
Australia's homicides and assaults were historically low. Since gun control was implemented 14 months ago homicides are up 3.2%, assaults up 8.6%, and robberies up 44%. In the UK the gun related crimes have increased 40% since the gun ban was instituted.
Russia, Mexico, and Japan have the strictist gun laws of the nations listed. Japan has a complete ban, Mexico makes it difficult to own anything bigger then a .22 calibur and Russia coming off of Communism had a complete ban. Since Russia has decreased gun control in 2005, its homicide rate has dropped 40% to 16.1 per 100k.
Norway, Switzerland, and the US definetly have the most lax gun control laws of the nations listed in 2005. The gun control for Norway has gotten more strict this month so the results will be difficult to assertain. When pitted against the dicotomy of strict and moderate gun control, they rank up about the same.
The theory, I guess, is that if we disarm Americans, they will be
Safer,
Less likely to attempt suicide;
Less likely to commit suicide; and
Less likely to die from a homicide.
It is something I do not buy. It is like the "presence" in the home. Does that include lawful and unlawful owners? Does that include those who practice responsible storage methods and those who do not? Are we lumping everyone together, criminal and citizen with a gun "present" in the home?
It is just not persuasive. Taking-away, or disarming regular citizens is not going to make them safer; indeed, I suspect it would actually make them less "safe." Sure. It is tragic that guns are used in suicide, but that does not mean that lawful and normal people should be disarmed. I do not understate the levels of depression. We have the HIGHEST RATE of UNEMPLOYMENT right now since the Great Depression. We had the most significant drop of unemployment in US History (even worse than the great depression). Giving-away your money is not going to make you wealthier; and giving-away your guns is not going to make you safer. I apologize if you think the analogy is invalid.
But we have entered a take-everything --jobs, money, home, rights, and now guns-- culture that is not working. I mean, it works for some of us. But not for all of YOU. YOU, as the whole, are the bail-out; it is your, total combined little incomes, that gives the U.S.A. its enormous credit. I digress, but there is a weird culture in the U.S.A. now of giving-up on important, fundamental rights and property and so forth.
Yes I do accept it as truth because there are more sources that point out the dangers.
Lets look at the numbers of handgun murders in 2004: 5 people in New Zealand
37 people in Sweden
56 people in Australia
184 people in Canada
19 people in Japan
73 people in the UK
11,344 people in the United States
Your post is a little deceptive. Use per capita numbers. After all the population in the US is over 300 million. You would have a difficult time fitting 300 million people in Sweden.
New Zealand 2.0
Sweden 2.64
Australia 1.45
Canada 2.05
Japan 0.64
United Kingdom 2.03 (2002 numbers)
United States 5.6
Added to the list:
Russia 25
Mexico 10.6
Norway 0.78
Switzerland 2.94 (2004 numbers)
I don't think there is any correlation between Gun Control and decreased homicides.
Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand have pretty similiar gun control that limits possession the size, makes age restrictions, and the need to register. New Zealand and Sweden also do not allow owning guns for self-defense and you have to be 18. Canada you can have a gun as young as 12 or younger in special circumstances, but you cannot directly buy a gun. Since the gun laws in Canada where made more strict in 1970, the homicide rate has slightly decreased. New Zealand and Sweden did not show signs of change in crime rate with stricter gun control.
Australia's homicides and assaults were historically low. Since gun control was implemented 14 months ago homicides are up 3.2%, assaults up 8.6%, and robberies up 44%. In the UK the gun related crimes have increased 40% since the gun ban was instituted.
Russia, Mexico, and Japan have the strictist gun laws of the nations listed. Japan has a complete ban, Mexico makes it difficult to own anything bigger then a .22 calibur and Russia coming off of Communism had a complete ban. Since Russia has decreased gun control in 2005, its homicide rate has dropped 40% to 16.1 per 100k.
Norway, Switzerland, and the US definetly have the most lax gun control laws of the nations listed in 2005. The gun control for Norway has gotten more strict this month so the results will be difficult to assertain. When pitted against the dicotomy of strict and moderate gun control, they rank up about the same.
Good post, Cleffy, and I think you are exactly right. Some people are convinced that disarming regular or little or "average" people will make them safe.
I think gun control in the US has a very practical purpose beyond protecting yourself. Its meant to be a tool to revolt if you are once again placed under a tyrannical government who over taxes you without representation. That was the original purpose of the ammendment. In that context, it makes a bit of sense when you look at the communist powers of the last century that were able to control the citizenship through force. The Ukraine Genocide did as much damage to Russia as WW2, it would have ended differently if Ukrainians had guns.
Which Ukrainian genocide would that be? The one where they put all those Jews and Russians in the oven?
Under Gameloading's handgun murder figures, The U.K. had 274 and the U.S. 11,000+
Yes the U.S. has 300 million citizens and the U.K. only 60 million, but the death toll ratio is significantly greater than the 5x difference in populace. It's Closer to 50x.
A 40% increase on "not very many" is still "not very many". It should be noted that even before assault weapons and handguns were banned here, they were very tightly controlled to the point where the average citizen never had access to them.
It should also be noted that the laws here have recently been changed. Gun crime now includes airguns, replica guns, airsoft and toy guns. A 40% increase in gun crime after they changed the law, does not necessarily mean quite the same thing over here as it does where you live. It's a gun crime for me to wave a toy water pistol at someone if it isn't a dayglow one that looks nothing like a real gun.
Originally posted by Gameloading
Originally posted by Porfat
Originally posted by Gameloading
I don't think that guns is going to stop someone from breaking in. The chance you actually have your gun near you when that happens is pretty slim. When you do actually have your gun with you, i think a robber is more likely to shoot when you threaten him with a gun, but these are assumptions on my part and I don't have evidence to back it up.
I doubt the people who own a handgun for protection are going to be threating a robber with it.
I disagree, owning a gun and actually shooting at another person are two very different things.
I have gun at hand most of the day and night.
I'm comforatble with the thought of using it on an intruder even though it would undoubtably result in my internment at Her Majesty's pleasure.
I don't think there is any point owning something you are unwilling to use, it defeats the object entirely. Quite apart from all the hassle of lisencing and regular inspections there is the concern of having them stolen or the kids pissing around with them.
I understand the gangster cred and all and just wanting to have one for bragging rights, but the responsability isn't worth the extra effort if it is just a paper tiger.
Arm Yourself-Look What's Coming to a State Near You.
Low-priority crimes like breaking and entering might not be prosecuted and the conviction rates will continue to decline if the proposed budget for the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office is approved, Prosecutor Kym Worthy told commissioners this morning.
“We can’t even cover our courtrooms anymore,” Worthy said in vehemently disagreeing with the $28-million general fund budget proposed for the prosecutor’s office by Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano. “At some point, if the budget continues to be cut, we’re going to have to start making decisions about what crimes we prosecute.”
The county is facing a $105-million deficit in its 2009-10 budget and has told department heads that 20% has to be cut from the overall budget. The 8% proposed cut to the prosecutor’s office would translate into 54 fewer employees and $6 million less than the prosecutor has asked for the upcoming fiscal year.
I don't like the federal government. I have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that was written to limit it's powers and to protect certain rights of mine.
The way I see it is this. Leave me the f*ck alone with your damned laws and rules and everything else that takes away from my abilities to make my own decisions about what is right for me and my family. And in turn, I will leave everyone else alone to make their own decisions.
That's American tradition. And I see nothing wrong with that.
If someone breaks into my house, I PROMISE you they are in for a heap of pain caused by a sudden onslaught of puncture wounds to their body.
Comments
I am assuming, you leave me with no choice since you provide nothing but a link, that you are referring to this: The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. What is homicide? What do they mean by "presence"? Is this lawful gun ownership, or unlawful gun possession in the home?
It is so vague that it is meaningless.
Can you do any better?
What study? The weapon of choice for suicides is a gun because it is so effective. The gun is not causing the depression that leads to the suicide anymore than the Golden Gate Bridge.
Thats why they are putting a net under the Golden Gate Bridge. What would you want to have more? A greater chance of being able to kill yourself in your own home, or being a greater victim of a break-in because the criminal doesn't fear retaliation. I am pretty sure the increase in suicide related deaths because a gun is in the home is less then the number of crimes committed because of anti-gun regulation.
It's nog vague at all, you're just trying to find excuses so you don't have to accept the truth.
It's nog vague at all, you're just trying to find excuses so you don't have to accept the truth.
Do you really accept that sentence as "the truth"? Really? I mean . . . really?
You are smarter than that.
It's nog vague at all, you're just trying to find excuses so you don't have to accept the truth.
Do you really accept that sentence as "the truth"? Really? I mean . . . really?
You are smarter than that.
Yes I do accept it as truth because there are more sources that point out the dangers.
Lets look at the numbers of handgun murders in 2004:
5 people in New Zealand
37 people in Sweden
56 people in Australia
184 people in Canada
19 people in Japan
73 people in the UK
11,344 people in the United States
if someone wants to end their own life .... why should we stop them? It's their choice to do it, and if they were completely set on doing it, they dont just need a gun to do it. I know this sounds a bit over the top but why not outlaw knives as well since those can be used as well to kill yourself.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
Because trying to butter bread without a knife can be difficult. Ever tried buttering your bread with a gun?
But to be a bit more serious, Knives can be used to kill yourself, absolutely. But I think it takes a lot more nerve to kill yourself with a knife than it does with a gun. Knives also have a lot of other uses that justify having one (or more) guns don't. They are only there to kill.
I think you're right in that somebody has the right to end their own life, but on the other hand, people who were stopped from commiting suicide are often thankful for that. People who want to commit suicide are often depressed and have an incorrect view on their situation, so the question is: Are these people responsible enough to judge over their own life?
It's a difficult situation.
Because trying to butter bread without a knife can be difficult. Ever tried buttering your bread with a gun?
use a spoon.
At this point, however, I am confused. Are we saying the "presence" of a gun in the home leads to homicide, or are we talking about different cultures and their guns?
I just want to make sure we are on the same page. Guns deter a lot of violence and crime, especially homicide. It is the brandishing of a weapon that is difficult to measure that prevents rapes, thefts, murders, robberies, home invasions, and so on and so forth.
Ban guns to prevent suicide... yeah, that's a great argument.
Suicide will go down when guns are gone, right. Then more people will jump off bridges and run into traffic or take pills, etc.
Get real man.
At this point, however, I am confused. Are we saying the "presence" of a gun in the home leads to homicide, or are we talking about different cultures and their guns?
I just want to make sure we are on the same page. Guns deter a lot of violence and crime, especially homicide. It is the brandishing of a weapon that is difficult to measure that prevents rapes, thefts, murders, robberies, home invasions, and so on and so forth.
Yes I'd also like clarification about the term used... "Presence". Presence simply means it being there, unless it is somehow defined otherwise. If we're talking objects present at a scene of crime or suicide etc, then a househeld stove's presence is the leading commonality for an object present at the scene.
The numbers say that suicide is going down, not just suicide by a gun.
Just because a person is capable of suicide by a gun doesn't mean that person is also capable of jumping off a bridge or to run into traffic.
Also, presence is clearly the presence of a gun in the home. In other words, when you have a gun in your home, you increase the chance of homicide.
Just so we get this out of the way because I know this misconception is about to come up, no, the increase in homicide is not because robbers and thieves are shot. The people more likely to get shot inside the house are friends and relatives.
The numbers say that suicide is going down, not just suicide by gun violence.
Just because a person is capable of suicide by a gun doesn't mean that person is also capable of jumping off a bridge or to run into traffic.
Also, presence is clearly the presence of a gun in the home. In other words, when you have a gun in your home, you increase the chance of homicide.
Maybe so, but not where I'm from. The presence of a gun may increase the "chance" of homicide, but it also decreases the "chance" that someone will break in and murder/rape your family when they're on a narcotics bender.
I've never, ever, been concerned for my own safety due to the "presence" of a gun, anywhere. Walking down the street increases the likelihood that you die a painful, sudden death due to an automobile collision, rather than decreasing the risk when you sit in your home.
Which is why I'm more wary of trivial things that we take for granted. Like cars, electrical appliances, tools and the abundance of pharmaceutical narcotics and/or the mixing of the four mentions.
The numbers say that suicide is going down, not just suicide by gun violence.
Just because a person is capable of suicide by a gun doesn't mean that person is also capable of jumping off a bridge or to run into traffic.
Also, presence is clearly the presence of a gun in the home. In other words, when you have a gun in your home, you increase the chance of homicide.
Maybe so, but not where I'm from. The presence of a gun may increase the "chance" of homicide, but it also decreases the "chance" that someone will break in and murder/rape your family when they're on a narcotics bender.
I've never, ever, been concerned for my own safety due to the "presence" of a gun, anywhere. Walking down the street increases the likelihood that you die a painful, sudden death due to an automobile collision, rather than decreasing the risk when you sit in your home.
Which is why I'm more wary of trivial things that we take for granted. Like cars, electrical appliances, tools and the abundance of pharmaceutical narcotics and/or the mixing of the four mentions.
I don't think that guns is going to stop someone from breaking in. The chance you actually have your gun near you when that happens is pretty slim. When you do actually have your gun with you, i think a robber is more likely to shoot when you threaten him with a gun, but these are assumptions on my part and I don't have evidence to back it up.
I doubt the people who own a handgun for protection are going to be threating a robber with it.
I doubt the people who own a handgun for protection are going to be threating a robber with it.
I disagree, owning a gun and actually shooting at another person are two very different things.
The numbers say that suicide is going down, not just suicide by a gun.
Just because a person is capable of suicide by a gun doesn't mean that person is also capable of jumping off a bridge or to run into traffic.
Also, presence is clearly the presence of a gun in the home. In other words, when you have a gun in your home, you increase the chance of homicide.
Just so we get this out of the way because I know this misconception is about to come up, no, the increase in homicide is not because robbers and thieves are shot. The people more likely to get shot inside the house are friends and relatives.
Or Survival....
Do you have a police station and a sheriff office within 3 minutes normal drive time of your house? Ever have a neighbor go postal for no reason with a illegally owned AK-47? You know what saved mine and 4 other peoples lives that day? Wasn't the police I assure you. It was the fact that this dumbass didn't kill us right from the word go. He fucked up and in a matter of 30 seconds put is life legally in our hands when we armed ourselves. After we were armed and 4 of us had beads on him 1 person called 911 only to argue with the dumb bitch over if it was or was not bursts from an AK-47 that she was listening to. They argued for 10 minutes plus and the whole time this guys spraying rounds in the air. "That doesn't sound like an AK-47 to me sir." The gunman was 30 - 40 feet from the phone, bursts of 7.62's didn't sound anything like firecrackers even over a phone at that distance. I also assure you the caller (friend) was also speaking calm and clear.
30 minutes later (note the distance mentioned earlier) a cop shows up to investigate a prank caller and is dumb founded when he was walking towards us he steps on a pile of 7.62 casings. The gunman had spent 3 clips and run off. But I assure you he knew once we armed ourselves he was a dead man if he lowered the barrel of his weapon in our direction. None of us had to say a word to him and we didn't we laid in the prone position and watched him. Long story short the neighbor never lowered the barrel of his weapon at us and we let him live. Thankfully it was possible for us to arm ourselves considering the events that were about to follow. The operator didn't have a job after that and to this day she would be the only woman that if I were to ever meet I would kick her fucking teeth in.
I assure you I am not making this up to support anything. I am not against stricter requirements for owning weapons. "I" as a gun owner have and would jump through whatever hoops I have to jump through to legally own my weapons. Big brother already has me in their system (a list)because of previous employment and training (nothing bad). Adding me to another list or whatever doesn't bother me one bit. I am no danger to anyone else except when my life without any doubt is in danger and even then I show restraint until it is absolutely necessary. My friends who are legal gun owners as well have the same frame of mind as myself. If you are scared and/or wanting to save owners like myself from myself (legal owners) who obey all the laws put in place and are responsible human beings then you would be better off spending your time concerned about other things.
Well, I'd like to address a few things you've said. I don't really have strong feelings on the debate, but I feel two things need to be cleared up factually.
First, the suicide issue. You've essentially fallen into the trap of linking correlation with causation, which you can't do without further study addressing the new proposition you're making. Let me lay out a few facts (at least in the United States) for you to consider.
1. Women are a lot more likely to attempt suicide.
2. Men are a lot more likely to actually complete a suicide attempt and kill themselves.
3. The reason this is true is (partially) because men typically pick far more effective suicide methods.
I imagine the latter facts are true across in the board in most Western nations, even those with incredibly stringent gun control laws, so your idea of guns being a contributor might not be too strong. The reason guns are used so often in America is because they're available and effective. In the absence of guns, men often find other ways to kill themselves that are equally effective.
The second is the idea of "the robber will just shoot you". A lot of people have misconceptions because their only dealings with firearms or combat is in Call of Duty. In reality, in any tactical situation where you're assaulting a building, be it MOUT or a home invasion, unless you act with both surprise and extreme speed, the defending party has a huge, massive advantage. This is why MOUT emphasizes speed and most modern militaries will simply blow up a building if a standoff has been reached, rather than push to invade it on foot. This is also why SWAT goes in with what seems like excessive force. It's not because these groups are assholes or prefer overkill. It's because that's what you need to do. So somebody with any form of early warning system (even a mediocre alarm system today can detect broken windows, etc.) actually has a pretty huge advantage over a home invader.
Finally, you really need to realize that gun control is as much a cultural and social issue as a political one. In your country, gun control may be fine because wealth distribution is a lot more even. In this country, I'm fairly certain there are areas where, if I forced you to live there, you would go and buy a weapon to protect yourself. I'm not joking. It's a huge disconnect between one part of the country and another here. On one hand, you can live in a suburb where one murder is huge news. On the other hand, if I dropped you into the middle of Richmond, Oakland, or Compton, a murder wouldn't even make the news unless it was a middle class white person. These things are not because of lack of gun control. They're because of poverty, proliferation of organized crime, drug trafficking, and numerous other issues. Go look it up. Compare the crime rates of the city you live in to the crime rates of a place like Compton, Richmond, etc. Remember that California has the harshest gun control laws in the US.
Your post is a little deceptive. Use per capita numbers. After all the population in the US is over 300 million. You would have a difficult time fitting 300 million people in Sweden.
New Zealand 2.0
Sweden 2.64
Australia 1.45
Canada 2.05
Japan 0.64
United Kingdom 2.03 (2002 numbers)
United States 5.6
Added to the list:
Russia 25
Mexico 10.6
Norway 0.78
Switzerland 2.94 (2004 numbers)
I don't think there is any correlation between Gun Control and decreased homicides.
Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand have pretty similiar gun control that limits possession the size, makes age restrictions, and the need to register. New Zealand and Sweden also do not allow owning guns for self-defense and you have to be 18. Canada you can have a gun as young as 12 or younger in special circumstances, but you cannot directly buy a gun. Since the gun laws in Canada where made more strict in 1970, the homicide rate has slightly decreased. New Zealand and Sweden did not show signs of change in crime rate with stricter gun control.
Australia's homicides and assaults were historically low. Since gun control was implemented 14 months ago homicides are up 3.2%, assaults up 8.6%, and robberies up 44%. In the UK the gun related crimes have increased 40% since the gun ban was instituted.
Russia, Mexico, and Japan have the strictist gun laws of the nations listed. Japan has a complete ban, Mexico makes it difficult to own anything bigger then a .22 calibur and Russia coming off of Communism had a complete ban. Since Russia has decreased gun control in 2005, its homicide rate has dropped 40% to 16.1 per 100k.
Norway, Switzerland, and the US definetly have the most lax gun control laws of the nations listed in 2005. The gun control for Norway has gotten more strict this month so the results will be difficult to assertain. When pitted against the dicotomy of strict and moderate gun control, they rank up about the same.
The theory, I guess, is that if we disarm Americans, they will be
It is something I do not buy. It is like the "presence" in the home. Does that include lawful and unlawful owners? Does that include those who practice responsible storage methods and those who do not? Are we lumping everyone together, criminal and citizen with a gun "present" in the home?
It is just not persuasive. Taking-away, or disarming regular citizens is not going to make them safer; indeed, I suspect it would actually make them less "safe." Sure. It is tragic that guns are used in suicide, but that does not mean that lawful and normal people should be disarmed. I do not understate the levels of depression. We have the HIGHEST RATE of UNEMPLOYMENT right now since the Great Depression. We had the most significant drop of unemployment in US History (even worse than the great depression). Giving-away your money is not going to make you wealthier; and giving-away your guns is not going to make you safer. I apologize if you think the analogy is invalid.
But we have entered a take-everything --jobs, money, home, rights, and now guns-- culture that is not working. I mean, it works for some of us. But not for all of YOU. YOU, as the whole, are the bail-out; it is your, total combined little incomes, that gives the U.S.A. its enormous credit. I digress, but there is a weird culture in the U.S.A. now of giving-up on important, fundamental rights and property and so forth.
Your post is a little deceptive. Use per capita numbers. After all the population in the US is over 300 million. You would have a difficult time fitting 300 million people in Sweden.
New Zealand 2.0
Sweden 2.64
Australia 1.45
Canada 2.05
Japan 0.64
United Kingdom 2.03 (2002 numbers)
United States 5.6
Added to the list:
Russia 25
Mexico 10.6
Norway 0.78
Switzerland 2.94 (2004 numbers)
I don't think there is any correlation between Gun Control and decreased homicides.
Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand have pretty similiar gun control that limits possession the size, makes age restrictions, and the need to register. New Zealand and Sweden also do not allow owning guns for self-defense and you have to be 18. Canada you can have a gun as young as 12 or younger in special circumstances, but you cannot directly buy a gun. Since the gun laws in Canada where made more strict in 1970, the homicide rate has slightly decreased. New Zealand and Sweden did not show signs of change in crime rate with stricter gun control.
Australia's homicides and assaults were historically low. Since gun control was implemented 14 months ago homicides are up 3.2%, assaults up 8.6%, and robberies up 44%. In the UK the gun related crimes have increased 40% since the gun ban was instituted.
Russia, Mexico, and Japan have the strictist gun laws of the nations listed. Japan has a complete ban, Mexico makes it difficult to own anything bigger then a .22 calibur and Russia coming off of Communism had a complete ban. Since Russia has decreased gun control in 2005, its homicide rate has dropped 40% to 16.1 per 100k.
Norway, Switzerland, and the US definetly have the most lax gun control laws of the nations listed in 2005. The gun control for Norway has gotten more strict this month so the results will be difficult to assertain. When pitted against the dicotomy of strict and moderate gun control, they rank up about the same.
Good post, Cleffy, and I think you are exactly right. Some people are convinced that disarming regular or little or "average" people will make them safe.
It is sad.
I think gun control in the US has a very practical purpose beyond protecting yourself. Its meant to be a tool to revolt if you are once again placed under a tyrannical government who over taxes you without representation. That was the original purpose of the ammendment. In that context, it makes a bit of sense when you look at the communist powers of the last century that were able to control the citizenship through force. The Ukraine Genocide did as much damage to Russia as WW2, it would have ended differently if Ukrainians had guns.
Which Ukrainian genocide would that be? The one where they put all those Jews and Russians in the oven?
Under Gameloading's handgun murder figures, The U.K. had 274 and the U.S. 11,000+
Yes the U.S. has 300 million citizens and the U.K. only 60 million, but the death toll ratio is significantly greater than the 5x difference in populace. It's Closer to 50x.
A 40% increase on "not very many" is still "not very many". It should be noted that even before assault weapons and handguns were banned here, they were very tightly controlled to the point where the average citizen never had access to them.
It should also be noted that the laws here have recently been changed. Gun crime now includes airguns, replica guns, airsoft and toy guns. A 40% increase in gun crime after they changed the law, does not necessarily mean quite the same thing over here as it does where you live. It's a gun crime for me to wave a toy water pistol at someone if it isn't a dayglow one that looks nothing like a real gun.
I doubt the people who own a handgun for protection are going to be threating a robber with it.
I disagree, owning a gun and actually shooting at another person are two very different things.
I have gun at hand most of the day and night.
I'm comforatble with the thought of using it on an intruder even though it would undoubtably result in my internment at Her Majesty's pleasure.
I don't think there is any point owning something you are unwilling to use, it defeats the object entirely. Quite apart from all the hassle of lisencing and regular inspections there is the concern of having them stolen or the kids pissing around with them.
I understand the gangster cred and all and just wanting to have one for bragging rights, but the responsability isn't worth the extra effort if it is just a paper tiger.
Arm Yourself-Look What's Coming to a State Near You.
Low-priority crimes like breaking and entering might not be prosecuted and the conviction rates will continue to decline if the proposed budget for the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office is approved, Prosecutor Kym Worthy told commissioners this morning.
“We can’t even cover our courtrooms anymore,” Worthy said in vehemently disagreeing with the $28-million general fund budget proposed for the prosecutor’s office by Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano. “At some point, if the budget continues to be cut, we’re going to have to start making decisions about what crimes we prosecute.”
The county is facing a $105-million deficit in its 2009-10 budget and has told department heads that 20% has to be cut from the overall budget. The 8% proposed cut to the prosecutor’s office would translate into 54 fewer employees and $6 million less than the prosecutor has asked for the upcoming fiscal year.
Worthy: Cuts hamper crime fight
Missouri Car Dealer Offers Free AK-47 With New Truck
More and more States are having to make major cut backs in crime fighting.Less cops on the streets means more crime in the hood.
Cali is shutting down the courts on one friday each month because the funds are not their..
But hey the stock market is up...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
How about considering this fact...
I don't like the federal government. I have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that was written to limit it's powers and to protect certain rights of mine.
The way I see it is this. Leave me the f*ck alone with your damned laws and rules and everything else that takes away from my abilities to make my own decisions about what is right for me and my family. And in turn, I will leave everyone else alone to make their own decisions.
That's American tradition. And I see nothing wrong with that.
If someone breaks into my house, I PROMISE you they are in for a heap of pain caused by a sudden onslaught of puncture wounds to their body.
And I don't miss too often.
===============================
