So much for Democrats courting gun owners

[U-533]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Quite right. I'd like the world's guns to be in the hands of those trained to use them, Army/Police. This is where the Swiss model is unusual. The mandatory gun ownership is for all men who have left the military, men trained in the use of guns.

Yeah I think that if more spermdoners/fathers became dads and really trained sons to be men then the only uses for a weapon would be for protection from oppressive governments and hunting.

But thats just a idea....it will never fly.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by U-533

Yeah I think that if more spermdoners/fathers became dads and really trained sons to be men then the only uses for a weapon would be for protection from oppressive governments and hunting.

But thats just a idea....it will never fly.

Hahahaha! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

False. Nukes are not used every day in murders/burglaries. There is a lot more to guns than criminal deterrence. Can you supply a source for that violent crime rate? The murder rate is 4 times higher in the US, guns used in over 2/3 of those, can you explain that?

I bet more people have dies over nukes that you can possibly realize. How many people have died so one country or another could have access to this form of power will never be fully realized. The murder rate of the US probably doesn't even cover a fraction.

I gave you a source to start looking - it is here. If you want to know the true source, it is the statisitic database for the us supreme court. Now you have you marching orders.

Start looking at the above article - guns are infiltrating the country you are calling the UK. Then get back to me on your basless question.

-S

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Can you supply a source for that violent crime rate? The murder rate is 4 times higher in the US, guns used in over 2/3 of those, can you explain that?

Can you? I haven't seen any from you.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I gave you a source to start looking - it is here. If you want to know the true source, it is the statisitic database for the us supreme court. Now you have you marching orders.

Start looking at the above article - guns are infiltrating the country you are calling the UK. Then get back to me on your basless question.

Yes, gun crime is increasing in the UK (can I call it that?). That article is four years old, but the situation has probably not improved significantly.
My question is not baseless. I want to know why the gun murder rate is higher in the US than in the UK. I don't expect anyone here to have the answers, but I imagine people have their opinions.

What you need to compare is violent crime for the UK which is about 5 times that of the United States

Wrong.

England & Wales Violent Crime Rate - 2003 - 665 per 100,000 here
United States Violent Crime Rate - 2003 - 475 per 100,000 here

Can you? I haven't seen any from you.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...9&postcount=49

[ASWnut101]

So, did you just make those numbers up in your head? A CREDITABLE SOURCE, as in: Where did you find those numbers?

[Tchocky]

Murder Rates - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...der_rate#2000s
UK rate was actually England & Wales. My bad. Still, exclusion of Scotland and NI is less than 7 million out of 60 million.

Murder Method - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon
This is a trend page, my previous source was from the same site, but a hard datasheet that I can't find. And according to this, 68% was conservative, it should be 71%

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105.pdf - 73 homicides, 8.5%. I rounded to 9%


Has anyone any ideas as to why this might be? Personally, I think the huge amount of guns have something to do with it.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I appreciate that a decrease gun crime and gun control legislation don't always go together, but there is no legislation severe enough that takes the guns off the streets. Comparing a 'tough' state to a country in which it's near-impossible to get a gun doesn't stand up.

True, but I believe it misses two points, and that they are:

1. The aforementioned differences in basic philosophies (at least as I perceive them); being that we here in America hold that the concept of individual liberty is the basic reason for our country's very existence.

2. The also aforementioned fact that America already has a huge privately-owned firearms base, and trying to ban all guns tomorrow would possibly lead to a new revolution. What works for Europe wouldn't necessarily work here, basically because of the mindset I mentioned in (1).

[MadMike]

What are the total deaths from firearms in all of Europe? Now, let's compare the murder rate per 100,000 with the U.S...

Yours, Mike

[ASWnut101]

Here is what I found from the second site Tchocky posted:



(Hint: Notice the dip)

and this:



(Hint: Notice the dip)

And then there's this:

Gun Sales Rise as Crime and Accident Rates Fall, National Shooting Sports Foundation Analysis Shows

Read the full article. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...5/ai_n16441024

[loynokid]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Here is what I found from the second site Tchocky posted:



(Hint: Notice the dip)

and this:



(Hint: Notice the dip)

And then there's this:

Read the full article. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...5/ai_n16441024

Right on, that is it!

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Simple - because your armed roving gangs that happened in Katrina would not be allowed to happen.

What most people don't get who are from outside the United States is that less than 1000th of 1% (<.001%) of firearm owners are the whacked people that screw it up for the rest of us. Based on this absurdly small statistic, do you think it to be normal that you should affect the rest of the known population over it? Does that make any logical sense?

Well the rhetoric is flying thick and fast here! Given the liberal gun laws in force in the US, then HOW did the armed roving gangs happen? Are you saying that BECAUSE everyone is not armed this happened? How ridiculous! Let's make sure in preparation for the next natural disaster that threatens America, that every man woman and child is armed to the teeth with the assult rifle of their choice and lets see what happens! My god it would be worse that Mogadishu!

We all get that it is the few that cause the problem, however the majority in our countries want to make it harder for the few to get hold of the weapons that can kill many! Yes it is normal to have laws to protect the many from the few. In fact almost all laws that restrict our "freedoms" are in place or altered for exactly that reason. To think otherwise is simple ignorance of the law making process.

Would you advocate the removal of laws relating to drink driving? It restricts your freedom, but the point is that these laws save lives. This is a perfect example of where a "small" statistic has affected the rest of the population.

I don't see any difference in gun control laws. It may be great fun to go out and have a drink then drive home afterwards steaming drunk, but it's just plain dangerous. Likewise it is great fun to go around with a gun shooting stuff. (I've done it, I know), but again it's dangerous!

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

True, but I believe it misses two points, and that they are:

1. The aforementioned differences in basic philosophies (at least as I perceive them); being that we here in America hold that the concept of individual liberty is the basic reason for our country's very existence.

2. The also aforementioned fact that America already has a huge privately-owned firearms base, and trying to ban all guns tomorrow would possibly lead to a new revolution. What works for Europe wouldn't necessarily work here, basically because of the mindset I mentioned in (1).

Thanks Steve, for accepting that I might have a point, and actually answering my questions.

From what you post, it looks like its not the guns themselves that are the issue, rather the right to have them, the individual liberty of bearing arms being infringed upon by the government. I don't buy it (ie, I believe you, but i don't like believing you :p). Which are the advocates of gun ownership attached to more, the guns or their right to have them?
If guns can be shown to have a net negative effect on society, should the concept of individual liberty prevail over the well-being of the society as a whole? I believe that the liberty of gun ownership in the US unfairly violates the "individual liberties" of many of it's citizens, such as the right to life.
I still don't know why that is, I'm getting pretty sick of asking the question and being quizzed on statistics instead (including SUBMAN1 questioning my figures, then 3 lines below posting wildly inaccurate figures). The numbers I've shown are correct, can anyone help me interpret them?

ASWnut - Those graphs show a general decline in violent & property crimes since the early 70's. (See, I noticed. A bit condescending, but hey I'll give it a try)
Notice the slowdown of the decrease from 2000 on, on both graphs. Would I be correct in saying that the Bush Administrations have been looser with gun control than the Clinton years? I'm open to correction here, but I think that's the case. So crime gets worse as gun control lessens. Of course, that's a huge leap to make from such general, non-specific data, but if you're happy doing that, I'm in. Any response to my previous post

As regards the article, it details one year out of what we've seen is a 30-year decline in crime. As I've already posted, both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership. Why do you think this is?

[TarJak]

Maybe I've missed the point a little here as well. I also think that those arguing for their freedoms are also missing the point a bit too. Where I live it is possible to legally (and illegally), obtain firearms. I think one of the biggest differences is the type of firearm that is available in both markets.

The question I would like answered by the Americans who are against gun controls is, whether the right to bear arms which was initiated by a group of rebels against the government of the time, who could not have possbily envisaged the types of weapons available to us today over 200 years later, is meant to give free reign to the people to choose whatever weapon they wish?

If for example in years to come there are hand versions of weapons with 400,000 rpm rates of fire or greater, are these to be available to anyone witha penchant for shooting things? Where does it stop? 20mm Gatlings or chain guns, Greande launchers, tanks, submarines, A10 attack aircraft. All come under the heading "arms", should governments cede that the "right" proclaimed 200 years ago will be applied to these weapons?

Wwhat is the benchmark at which limits are to be set, lethality?, rate of fire?, portability?

If the roving gangs post Katrina were armed with bazookas and M60's does that give you the "right" to escalate your legal arsenal to match it? If not why not? Your government has access to these weapons, so why not ordinary citizens just in case the buggers come looking to take your guns away?

"Ma break out the Minuteman missle launch codes, the FBI wants to take it away from us before we get to fire it at anyone!"

The history of warfare (and frankly that is what you are talking about when you arm yourself against marauding mobs or your own government), exactly matches human behaviour, hit me with your fist I'll use a stick, use a stick and I'll use a rock, use a rock and I'll get a sword and so on. Where does it stop?

[August]

Wwhat is the benchmark at which limits are to be set, lethality?, rate of fire?, portability?

You want limits? Here they are:

Explosive projectile weapon rounds like RPGs are not firearms, nor are private individuals allowed to own them here in the states. That goes for HE tank rounds, grenades and other similar weapons. You can own a tank, and the gun can be operational, you can even have solid shot or paint rounds for it but explosive rounds are totally illegal.

Automatic weapons (the real "assault weapons") as well as 20mm gatlings and quad 50 cals can be owned by private individuals provided they pay a hefty tax (a couple hundred dollars) and submit to a rather extensive FBI backround check.

Other firearms, including semi-automatics, pistols and certain shotguns are restricted to varying degrees by each state.

The question I would like answered by the Americans who are against gun controls is, whether the right to bear arms which was initiated by a group of rebels against the government of the time, who could not have possbily envisaged the types of weapons available to us today over 200 years later, is meant to give free reign to the people to choose whatever weapon they wish?

Your reducto ad absurdum argument is based on a false premise. Nobody has ever advocated giving everyone any weapon they wish. However I do think our founding fathers, if they were alive today would have been just as much in favor of private ownership of firearms as they were 200 years ago. Like Steve says, it's about the concept of individual freedom and that shouldn't change just because technology improves.

Now let me ask you a question in return. Our forefathers could hardly have envisioned a worldwide instant mass media capable of having such an immediate and detrimental effect on our nation either. Should therefore that same argument be used to restrict the freedom of speech? If not, why not?

Oh and BTW the right to keep and bear arms was not codified into our constitution until well after the end of the American revolution. These were educated men, leaders of their nation, who wrote the 2nd amendment. it wasn't, as you imply, just a group of rebels trying to stick it to the man as it were.