Gun Control

[Sender]

This topic of discussion should break down barriers we may otherwise have. I hope I am in the right forum.

What are your thoughts?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Percent of households with a handgun:

United States 29%
Finland 7
Germany 7
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1

Murders committed with handguns annually:

United States 8,915
Switzerland 53
Sweden 19
Canada 8
United Kingdom 7


The availability of guns DO make a dramatic difference.

No guns for Joe public would be like a feeding frenzy for criminals IMO.

Guns for Joe public means guns for prospective criminals as well. As the statistics accurately depict.

[1John2_26]

Blame the shooter and not the gun.

Why won't liberals apply the same logic to the AIDS epidemic. Outlaw what causes those deaths.

And of course outlaw cars as well. They kill far more people than guns.

Take away booze as well. And crack. Or just outlaw the pipes.

Gun control to an extent is necessary don't get me wrong. I have no reason to own a rifle or pistol but I shouldn't suffer for degenerates doing bad things. Denying gun rights to honest people is not good. Hold the families of the perpetrators responsible for what their family members do. If you find the connection of bad families producing violent people, you can outlaw them as well. In fact, I'll bet if you outlaw bad families you'll do away with much violent crime.

[Excel]

Canada 8

Something seems wrong with that figure. Just last week, two people were killed in Toronto in a gang shooting.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Blame the shooter and not the gun.

If it were not for the gun, the shooter would have nothing to shoot. Blame both.


Does it not bother anyone that I could concievably waltz straight on over to my friends house, get his dads gun, and stroll in to class with it? Getting a gun in America is no harder than picking up a candy bar at the local convenience mart. This is essentially what happened at Colombine.

The suicide rate in the US is hundreds of times greater than that of other countries. The most dangerous place in the world for a impressionable, disturbed youth. "God my life sucks *sees gun on living room shelf* ". Put two and two together.

Enough of this "self defense" crap. Pro-gun advocates point to the crime rate in defense of the lethal weapons they keep in their house for "protection". But why is the crime rate so high in the first place? BECAUSE OF THE GUNS PEOPLE BUY TO "PROTECT" THEMSELVES.

The US has the highest crime rate of the industrialized world. It also has the most lax gun laws. Hello?

Why were guns invented? To make killing people easier. Person+gun+person the first person really hates= ______

Fill in the blank. It shouldn't be too difficult.

Something seems wrong with that figure. Just last week, two people were killed in Toronto in a gang shooting.

Then show me some other statistics. Whatever the numbers, crime in Canada is a fraction of that in the US.

[Vladd44]

Platypus, I often agree with your sentiments, but I think your dead wrong on this one.

Americans have one of the highest cholesterol rates in the world too.

If you are wondering what that has to do with gun control, well not much. But then again, simply stating that more americans have guns than other countries has about as much relevance to the murder rate as cholesterol.

The vast majority of gun related incidents in this country have to do with prohibition. Legalize drugs, and the motivation (money as always) is gone.

The same methods of getting drugs into the country just as easily allow guns to slip through the system.

The bottom line is this, a vast overwhelming number of the guns in the usa are NEVER used for violence. It is a minute minority that is guilty of such acts of violence. And the responsibility lies firmly with the finger on the trigger.

I must ask you that if you had a gun in front of you, would you automatically go outside and shoot people? or commit suicide? Because I have always considered your opinions and views to be thoughtful I must assume No. But why do you assume others would become mindless brutes simply because they own a firearm.

As much as it pains me, i must go with johnboy on the gun control issue. But next time he should consider that crack is already outlawed, and so are crack pipes.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Americans have one of the highest cholesterol rates in the world too.

And hypothetically, restrict the sale of unhealthy foods and that would go down. Don't you think? I mean, how many people are going to bother entering the underground market and risk criminal charges just so they can get their hands on a twinkie?

The vast majority of gun related incidents in this country have to do with prohibition. Legalize drugs, and the motivation (money as always) is gone.

I do not understand. Guns are not even remotely prohibited here, why should this play a part?

America has always had a baseless fear of unruly government interference. Consequently, our citizens run wild, and everyone ends up getting trampled. In this case, the guy walking down the dark alley shot in the head by a person exerting his "God-given freedom" to buy a deadly assault weapon.

The same methods of getting drugs into the country just as easily allow guns to slip through the system.

The bottom line is this, a vast overwhelming number of the guns in the usa are NEVER used for violence. It is a minute minority that is guilty of such acts of violence. And the responsibility lies firmly with the finger on the trigger.

Problem is, you never really know who that "minute minority" is. We don't go out handing chainsaws to kindergardeners under the presumption that most of them wouldn't do something stupid with them. Because you know there will always be some idiot who will pretend to saw off little susie's leg, and in doing so accidently start it up.

Under which system would it be easiest for the general population to get a gun? Would it be easier for me to enter the illegal underground gun trade and smuggle one in, or stroll over to K-Mart? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold bought their bullets from a local supermarket. They didn't even have to display ID, if I'm not mistaken.

I feel that the blatantly lesser amount of gun violence in nations with stricter gun control speaks for itself. I have heard that most Canadians do not even lock their doors at night, much less keep a shotgun under their pillow like half the paranoid "self-defense" advocates in America. Wouldn't it be nice to feel that safe in your own nieghborhood?

But why do you assume others would become mindless brutes simply because they own a firearm.

Because many DO. I am not assuming anything.

I used to share CJK's mentality. Then I looked at the statistics.

[Vladd44]

I do not understand. Guns are not even remotely prohibited here, why should this play a part?

Sorry, the prohibition I was talking about was drug prohibition. The removal of this absurd misguided attempt has been the primary force that has escalated the violence of our inner cities. Guns are just a tool used in that pursuit, not the driving force. Drug prohibition is the fuel, guns are only an acellerant.

Problem is, you never really know who that "minute minority" is.

Agreed, but if we take such a proactive stance we run the risk of new unanticipated consequences. The view of since we don't know we should assume guilt for them all is exactly the concept that has led us down the path to a president that thinks he can spy on any citizen he wants with impunity.

I encourage you to take a closer look at the european model for drugs. It is a far less punitive system. I would put forward the hypothesis that is deserves more credit for the lack of violence than a lack of guns. Of course guns make it all the easier, but to work on a secondary issue while ignoring the primary reason makes no sense to me.

I absolutely cannot walk down the theoretical path that guns lead people to become brutes. Perhaps in rare occasions it can bring out the worst in an individual but hardly to the level we see in our murder rate.

Of course the more guns there are, the more risk for abuse, and I doubt a country with 29% firearms possesion will ever have 10 murders a year. But with an end to drug prohibition I do believe we would see dramatic declines.

At the risk of sounding like one of those self defense advocates, the posturing of the us current head of state leaves me little confidence to my nations integrity, goodwill or concern over my affairs. My lack of trust in local law enforcment everywhere that I have ever lived helps reenforce that view. While I hope they can be counted on, I do not plan on leaving myself at their mercy. For me, guns aren't about protecting me from my fellow citizens, I can handle them. It is my government I do not trust.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Sorry, the prohibition I was talking about was drug prohibition. The removal of this absurd misguided attempt has been the primary force that has escalated the violence of our inner cities. Guns are just a tool used in that pursuit, not the driving force. Drug prohibition is the fuel, guns are only an acellerant.

But with an end to drug prohibition I do believe we would see dramatic declines.

I agree that the drug policy is screwed up. But I don't see it changing any time soon.

If the government could tax drugs, they would be legal in an instant. But for whatever reason, this has never happened (perhaps there is no way for it to). Regardless, marijuana prohibition is a hot topic for conservatives who want their politicians to be "tough on crime" (translation, completely ineffective). Republicans and Democrats BOTH are unlikely to abandon this leverage point.

But for sake of the argument, let us presume that up to 90% of murder is drug related. Even at this high a rate, it would not make a bit of difference. Just that remaining 10% of the annual murders in the US would still make us the industrialized crime capital of the world. It is that bad.

I absolutely cannot walk down the theoretical path that guns lead people to become brutes. Perhaps in rare occasions it can bring out the worst in an individual but hardly to the level we see in our murder rate.

No one is walking that path. Many people are brutes by NATURE. Putting a gun in their hand converts their savagery into something mortally perilous for anyone daring to cross their wake.

If you handed me a gun, I would feel no more compelled to shoot up the school than if you had handed me a butterknife. But this cannot be said for some people.

My lack of trust in local law enforcment everywhere that I have ever lived helps reenforce that view. While I hope they can be counted on, I do not plan on leaving myself at their mercy. For me, guns aren't about protecting me from my fellow citizens, I can handle them. It is my government I do not trust.

So, you are more concerned about a police rebellion or government massacre than say, a robber breaking and entering your home to find you sitting in the living room, or a gang happening upon you down a dark alleyway?

This I do not get. Many people act like the government is just poised to strike, and will not stop at pillaging the entire countryside. Seriously, how often does this happen? Sure, there is a lot of crap the government would love to do to you, but nothing a gun can prevent (the voting booth is the best defense). Is preventing the remote (and when I say remote, I mean virturally non-existant) chance of a government massacre worth violating the lives of thousands of American citizens who die in gun incidents every year?

And let's not forget, not ALL gun incidents are intended. More children die every year in America from ACCIDENTAL gun incidents than do people in Canada from ALL incidents combined. There is absolutely no reason for the common person to harbor assault weapons in the confines of their own home (much less their pants pocket).

[Dion]

The Persnickety Platypus

I'm not sure where you get your statistics from but I seriously doubt that 1% of households in the UK has a handgun. I would be surprised if it was more than 0.001% at most and probably much less.

Private possession of handguns (pistols) was banned in 1997 in the UK following the Dunblane Massacre. Also banned are all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns. The only weapons that a private citizen may possess are bolt action rifles and 'break at the breach' type shotguns. (e.g. double-barreled type) A senior government minister (The Home Secretary) can issue a special licence allowing possession of the prohibited weapons but the issue of such a licence is extremely rare. (An international firearms dealer or similar might be issued one.) Even those weapons which are allowed are subject to very tight licencing arrangements, background checks and regular police inspection of the weapons and secure storage arrangements. Indeed , the UK probably has the most stringent firearms regulations of any country in the 'free' world.

Unfortunately for your argument, this has not led to a reduction in the number of firearms related crimes and deaths. Although I do not suggest that there is necessarily any causal link between the ban and the rise in gun crime, simply banning the lawful possession of firearms does not seem to work.

The link below leads (I hope) to a newspaper article which explains the situation in more detail.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ngun10.xml

The expandable graphic gives the information most clearly.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I believe the statistics that I posted were actually from before 1997.

But you can still see the correllation between the availability of guns and deaths. America has (by far) the most guns available. America has (by far) the most gun deaths.

What is also interesting is how England, who has a much LOWER percentage of guns per family than Europe as a whole, has a much HIGHER number of gun fatalities than every European country except Switzerland and Sweden. Obviously there must be some other variables in effect for the UK.

In retrospect, BOTH of our statistics have much too many variables in effect to really make an accurrate assessment concerning this one issue. Lots of things could contribute to a country's crime rates, such as the drug enforcement or social system. It would require much more research before reaching a truly accurate conclusion.

However, theoretically, the availability of guns must make a difference. In which country is it easier to kill someone? The one where you can stroll down to Wal-Mart to purchase a firearm and ammo, or the one where you have to enter the underground market to even have a chance at obtaining a weapon? From what I can gather, most violent crimes are spur of the moment matters. One would have difficulty acting in "a spur of a moment" fashion if he must dodge law enforcement and spend weeks in alleyways trying find someone who can sell him a weapon.