So much for Democrats courting gun owners

[Tchocky]

I saw those numbers also Tchocky. Since they did not differentiate on the means I decided the numbers were of no value in this thread.

Best figures I can get regarding method.
MURDER RATE PER 100,000
USA - 5.9
Australia - 1.28
Britain - 1.62
France - 1.64
Germany - 0.98

METHOD (mid 1990's)
44% of US murders were by firearm.
7% in Australia
6% in France
2% in Germany
1% in the UK

[ASWnut101]

Can you provide the numbers for the 2000 years, not the 1990's?

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Best figures I can get regarding method.
MURDER RATE PER 100,000
USA - 5.9
Australia - 1.28
Britain - 1.62
France - 1.64
Germany - 0.98

METHOD (mid 1990's)
44% of US murders were by firearm.
7% in Australia
6% in France
2% in Germany
1% in the UK

Since those numbers were so old and during 1994 the fire arms initiative I could not in good conscience use them. Since that time the 1994 ban has expired and during the 1994 law the Columbine incident occurred. The numbers don't currently make sense.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Can you provide the numbers for the 2000 years, not the 1990's?

What I could get for 05. I'm not bothered hunting further

Murder Rate per 100,000 people - 2005

US - 5.9
UK - 1.62

Method

US - 68% firearms
UK - 9%

[geetrue]

There's no equivalent of New York to California with Detroit and Chicago in the middle in the UK.

A judge in Houston several years ago asked a young man right before his sentencing, "Why did you shoot your friend"?

The young man said, "It looked so easy on T.V"?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/20...andating-guns/

Please use real facts - ie. don't use the Brady campaign. These are skewed statistics.

Why don't you go and find the real numbers for violent crime in the US vs UK. What you will find will astonish you in how how UK crime is over our own. If you care to search - it is here in the general thread at subsim. i would never live in the UK because of it.

Next - cars accidently kill what? 40,000 people in the US in a given year. That is a huge number comparitevly. I think that is a much bigger target than the couple people that were accidently shot due to stupidity. +1 for Darwin. Based on your idea, we should ban cars way before we go after guns.

Maybe we should strap everyone into there home so they can't leave so that they can't get hit by lightening or something. Oh - maybe they would die from other causes then since obesity might be a problem then?

So I am trying to understand how you live in a country that is built on the very ownership of the very thing you despise? We wouldn't be America today if we followed your advice. We would be New England or something, surpressed, and taxed to the hilt till we were all poor. Do you realize what you are saying?

-S

PS. And you actually kill people daily in sub sims, yet you hate weapons in general? I don't get it.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

What I could get for 05. I'm not bothered hunting further

Murder Rate per 100,000 people - 2005

US - 5.9
UK - 1.62

Method

US - 68% firearms
UK - 9%

Ok, I just wanted to point this out:

If the population of the US is ~360 million, using your figures, Tchocky, that would imply that 14,443 people were killed by guns in 2005 in the US. The leading cause of death in the US in 2005 was tobacco usage, which resaulted in cancer [435,000].

Source: http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/miscel...sof191148.html

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Next - cars accidently kill what? 40,000 people in the US in a given year. That is a huge number comparitevly. I think that is a much bigger target than the couple people that were accidently shot due to stupidity. +1 for Darwin. Based on your idea, we should ban cars way before we go after guns.

That's a ridiculous extrapolation. Cars and guns are not analogous. Many countries in the world function quite well without widespread gun ownership, you can't say the same for cars. The factual evidence for costs/benefits of removing guns are at best ambigous, whereas for cars the effects are self-evident.

So I am trying to understand how you live in a country that is built on the very ownership of the very thing you despise? We wouldn't be America today if we followed your advice. We would be New England or something, surpressed, and taxed to the hilt till we were all poor. Do you realize what you are saying?

Many countries have been born out of violence, I don't see how that affects this issue. Yes, the US came into being through armed conflict. That was a very long time ago. My home country was established after a War Of Independence, much more recently than the US, and we've got no complaints with gun controls.
I don't understand your argument, but I'll try it out. What about smallpox? It was a major factor in the decline of the Native American, yet the US helped eradicate it?

Originally Posted by ASW

If the population of the US is ~360 million, using your figures, Tchocky, that would imply that 14,443 people were killed by guns in 2005 in the US. The leading cause of death in the US in 2005 was tobacco usage, which resaulted in cancer [435,000].

Uh-huh. What are you getting at?
btw the population of the US is 300 million.

[ASWnut101]

Why wont liberals try to ban tobacco?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Why wont liberals try to ban tobacco?

Are you seriously comparing gun homicide with tobacco smoking?

edit - SERIOUSLY?

You choose to smoke, you don't choose to get shot.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

That's a ridiculous extrapolation. Cars and guns are not analogous. Many countries in the world function quite well without widespread gun ownership, you can't say the same for cars. The factual evidence for costs/benefits of removing guns are at best ambigous, whereas for cars the effects are self-evident.

Many countries have been born out of violence, I don't see how that affects this issue. Yes, the US came into being through armed conflict. That was a very long time ago. My home country was established after a War Of Independence, much more recently than the US, and we've got no complaints with gun controls.
I don't understand your argument, but I'll try it out. What about smallpox? It was a major factor in the decline of the Native American, yet the US helped eradicate it?

Uh-huh. What are you getting at?

Yep - i see you don't understand. If you read above, we should save an estimated 30 to 50 people a year from accidental shootings. If that is going to be used as an argument, then cars is a 'MUCH' bigger target. You live in Europe, so to me in the US, a gun is a tool - just like a car. It can be used for everything from hunting to defense. So to me - they are along the same exact lines and analogous in the lines that were drawn.

For America to remain strong, we must continue to follow past traditions. Maybe that doesn't bode well for Europe, since it is a dying section of the world with a negative birth rate (a direct indicator of how your population thinks of its future), but I would like to keep my country strong. This is just one more that people are trying to errode away.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Why wont liberals try to ban tobacco?

They need to. it would be good for the world. Maybe they can focus their energies on it.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Yep - i see you don't understand. If you read above, we should save an estimated 30 to 50 people a year from accidental shootings. If that is going to be used as an argument, then cars is a 'MUCH' bigger target. You live in Europe, so to me in the US, a gun is a tool - just like a car. It can be used for everything from hunting to defense. So to me - they are along the same exact lines and analogous in the lines that were drawn.

Actually, it works out to around 700, off the top of my head. 2.5 x 365 != 30.
If accidental deaths were the only basis for gun control, you'd be correct.

For America to remain strong, we must continue to follow past traditions. Maybe that doesn't bode well for Europe, since it is a dying section of the world with a negative birth rate (a direct indicator of how your population thinks of its future), but I would like to keep my country strong. This is just one more that people are trying to errode away.

Traditions come and go. Slavery/Puritanism/Habeas Corpus etc.
As regards birth rate, I think 6 billion is enough at the moment, and with open borders and free transfer of people, Europe's insularity is what's dying.

SUBMAN, would you be in favour of Prohibition?

[geetrue]

Hey, were just throwing horse shoes, right?

Here's a horse shoe throw ... What if?

What if the U.K. had the same laws as the United States in regards to gun control?

Both countries allowed all citzens the right to bear arms, except known felon's.

Both countries come under terroist attack ... An attack so bad that the citzens of large metro areas are displaced and forced to move from their habitat, by auto, truck, train, plane, ship or on foot.

What's the first thing law enforcement is going to do?

Remove any gun that can discharge a bullet and injure an innocent person, especially a peace officer.

Everyone would be checked for contraband and the law would be changed and enforced in a 24 hour period.

The only reason I included U.K to be equal in this scenario is to show you that law enforcement people think alike in a time of trouble. As it stands the U.K. would be way ahead of the USA in a search and seizure situation, but I can only imagine how many weapons would show up on both sides.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I understand your ignorance being from Canada, but one day you guys will wake up. Hopefully for a fellow subsimmer, I hope it is not too late.

So please enlighten this ignorant Canadian by explaining - if I understand correctly - why everyone being equipped with assault rifles in a Katrina-scale disaster area would be a good thing.

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Why wont liberals try to ban tobacco?

Up here, they are doing everything but. Except they're not "liberals" (Progressive Conservatives). As I gather, all of these tobacco-related illnesses are stressing our health care system, sucking up hundreds of millions of provincial tax money. Cigs are taxed quite heavily to pay for this and additional legislation just came in which severely limited the locations one can legally smoke. Kind of OT but since the U.S. health care system is so different I thought it was worth pointing out.

I'm waiting for someone to attempt to discredit the trend Tchoky's statistics have presented after he was made to jump through all those hoops.