Violent crime down....gun ownership up!
- Thread starter Lepisosteus platyrhincus
- Start date
- Status
Well lets start with mine. The country our family fled first after the revolution then the later wave. First thing they did was ban all personally owned weapons then brain washed everyone that guns are bad. This was a double boon as many survivor and their children blame the guns and not the men. Then once they did so the purges started. Most of my great grand parents were executed. The only thing anyone there could do was pray that their neighbor got taken instead of them. Then when that was not enough security in hoping and pray (which was a punishable offense) they turned on each other. Instead of fighting the commissar commy scum bags they became informers. What good is a rock no matter how expertly thrown against even and complete roob with an PPS. We finally got back into the middle class after 3 generations (on dads side) or FOB for me and moms side. Mom's side were both sufficiently poor and sufficiently lucky to become professors after the revolution and surviving the purges. This is not from a history book white washed by either side for personal or political gain. I saw the photos I saw the tears.
Now you want this whole thing to happen again? Wait it can't happen here right? Never? The aftermath of Katrina proved that local law enforcement will very quickly turn on the civies using them for target practice. If you think that it won't scale nationally in a catastrophe then I envy your optimism. The only reason this paragraph is not dripping with expletives is due to TOS rules.
3 generations?
Russia is NOT your country. USA is!
or choose, you can't have both( USA doesn't allow dual citizenship).
I asked about " rights", as in the Second Amendment.
There were no 'rights' in soviet or imperial russia. There the far right beat down of the peasantry/serfs under the Romanovs begat the far left's reaction.
Apples and oranges to this conversation.
and...correlation does not equal causation.!
and then you jump to ' you want this to happen again'....as if......
btw. I am not against guns, I am against irrational arguments not supported by facts and idiots with guns.
Thankfully not all gun owners are idiots and not all idiots are gun owners.
Russia is NOT your country. USA is!
or choose, you can't have both( USA doesn't allow dual citizenship).
I asked about " rights", as in the Second Amendment.
There were no 'rights' in soviet or imperial russia. There the far right beat down of the peasantry/serfs under the Romanovs begat the far left's reaction.
Apples and oranges to this conversation.
and...correlation does not equal causation.!
and then you jump to ' you want this to happen again'....as if......
btw. I am not against guns, I am against irrational arguments not supported by facts and idiots with guns.
Thankfully not all gun owners are idiots and not all idiots are gun owners.
Well for me to show some, I need to know what you consider a fact. Any fool can tear apart an argument with minor detail, I want to see you build one. The United States court system deems a sworn written statement as fact. The quote I used was a sworn written statement of what many people had witnessed first hand and had dedicated themselves to preventing in the future.
As for the second question. You answered part of that yourself in your response to snot. You skimmed over it while going off on a tangent about unarmed populations being controlled by guns (but I'll return to that in a moment). It was the British government. The rights that were violated that you seem to be forgetting are listed in the Declaration of Independence.
Now for your statement about how guns were used to slaughter Native Americans, keep unarmed slaves under control, etc. You acknowledge that an unarmed population is easy to control and conquer, I concur. The difference in views seems to be based on whether they should be in our society or not. Do you want our society to be relatively unarmed like the original Native Americans? The times of conquer are not over yet. Animals, including us humans, are territorial by nature with the thought of expanding our territories always present. This is also a fact. History has repeatedly supported this statement. But now we come back to what do you call a fact. Where do you draw the line?
Your under the impression that I think the us government is beyond reproach, and are extremely dead wrong!
Im not pro slavery
Not for the annihilation of native people and their culture.
so you're examples are helping me prove my points. Without a gun to protect themselves people are subject to the armed peoples wants and desires even id that includes enslavement or utter annihilation.
Sent from my HTC Glacier using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Im not pro slavery
Not for the annihilation of native people and their culture.
so you're examples are helping me prove my points. Without a gun to protect themselves people are subject to the armed peoples wants and desires even id that includes enslavement or utter annihilation.
Sent from my HTC Glacier using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
If anyone bothered to read the National Academies Report that I posted...there is a really good (and un-biased / ideological) assessment of what we know and don't know:
Empirical research on firearms and violence has resulted in important findings that can inform policy decisions. In particular, a wealth of descriptive information exists about the prevalence of firearm-related injuries and deaths, about firearms markets, and about the relationships between rates of gun ownership and violence. Research has found, for example, that higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide, that illegal diversions from legitimate commerce are important sources of crime guns and guns used in suicide, that firearms are used defensively many times per day, and that some types of targeted police interventions may effectively lower gun crime and violence. This information is a vital starting point for any constructive dialogue about how to address the problem of firearms and violence.
<snip>
There is hardly a more contentious issue in American society than the ownership of firearms and various proposals for their control. To make reasonable decisions about these matters, public authorities must take account of conflicting constitutional claims and divided public opinion as well as the facts about the relationship between firearms and violence. In performing these tasks, policy makers must try to strike a reasonable balance between the costs and the benefits of private firearm ownership.
The costs seem obvious. In 2000, over 48,000 victims suffered nonfatal gunshot wounds (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001) and over 10,000 were murdered with a firearm (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2001). Many more people, though not shot, are confronted by assailants armed with a gun. Young people are especially affected by this, so much so that firearm fatalities consistently rank among the leading causes of death per capita for youth. In 2000, people ages 20 to 24 accounted for almost one-fourth of all victims of homicides with a firearm (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2001). Moreover, there are more suicides than homicides that are committed with firearms. And firearm-related accidents result in many serious injuries.
These grim facts must be interpreted with caution. Firearms are involved in homicides and suicides, but determining how many would have occurred had no firearm been available is at best a difficult task. Between 1980 and 1984 there were more than three times as many nongun homicides per capita in America than in England (Zimring and Hawkins, 1998). There were over 41,000 nongun homicides and over 63,000 gun homicides in the United States during this period. New York City has had a homicide rate that is 8 to 15 times higher than Londons for at least the last 200 years, long before either city could have had its rates affected by English gun control laws, the advent of dangerous drugs, or the supposedly harmful effects of the mass media (Monkkonen, 2001). Thus, the United States arguably has a high level of violence and homicide independent of firearm availability. Nonetheless, today homicides by a firearm occur in
the United States at a rate that is more than 63 times that of England, so firearms, though not the sole source of violence, play a large role in it (Zimring and Hawkins, 1998).
<snip>
Many people reading this report will ask whether the committee favors or opposes gun control, accepts or rejects the right of people to own guns, and endorses or questions the conflicting interpretations of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).
Resolving these issues, though important, is not the task the committee was given. We were asked to evaluate the data and research on firearm violence to see what is known about the causal connection, if any, between firearms on one hand and violence, suicide, and personal defense on the other. In carrying out this task, we have tried to do what scholars are supposed to donamely, assess the reliability of evidence about the ownership of firearms and discern what, if anything, is known about the connection between firearms and violence. This involves looking at not only how many firearms are owned and who owns them but also the complex personality, social, and circumstantial factors that intervene between a firearm and its use and the effect, if any, of programs designed to reduce the likelihood that a firearm will cause unjustified harm.1 It also includes investigating the effectiveness of firearm use in self-defense. It does not include making judgments about whether individuals should be allowed to possess firearms or whether specific firearm control proposals should be enacted.
Questions of cause-and-effect and more-or-less are not how many Americans think about firearms. Some individuals believe that firearm ownership is a right that flows directly from the Second Amendment or indirectly from every citizens right to self-defense. Others believe that there is no right to bear arms, and that firearms play little or no role in self-defense.
<snip>
Our report is not for or against gun control. (We put gun control in quotation marks because it is so vague: gun control can range from preventing four-year-old children from owning guns to banning their ownership by competent adults.) Knowing how strongly so many Americans feel about firearms and various proposals to control or prevent controls on their ownership, we here state emphatically that our task is to determine what can be learned from existing data and studies that rely on them and to make recommendations about how the knowledge base could be effectively improved. Readers of this report should not be surprised that the committee often concludes that very little can be learned. The committee was not called into being to make policy about firearms. Political officials, responding not only to data and studies but also to widely held (and often passionately opposed) public beliefs, will have to make policy. They should do so, however, with an understanding of what is known and not known about firearms and violence.
Empirical research on firearms and violence has resulted in important findings that can inform policy decisions. In particular, a wealth of descriptive information exists about the prevalence of firearm-related injuries and deaths, about firearms markets, and about the relationships between rates of gun ownership and violence. Research has found, for example, that higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide, that illegal diversions from legitimate commerce are important sources of crime guns and guns used in suicide, that firearms are used defensively many times per day, and that some types of targeted police interventions may effectively lower gun crime and violence. This information is a vital starting point for any constructive dialogue about how to address the problem of firearms and violence.
<snip>
There is hardly a more contentious issue in American society than the ownership of firearms and various proposals for their control. To make reasonable decisions about these matters, public authorities must take account of conflicting constitutional claims and divided public opinion as well as the facts about the relationship between firearms and violence. In performing these tasks, policy makers must try to strike a reasonable balance between the costs and the benefits of private firearm ownership.
The costs seem obvious. In 2000, over 48,000 victims suffered nonfatal gunshot wounds (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001) and over 10,000 were murdered with a firearm (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2001). Many more people, though not shot, are confronted by assailants armed with a gun. Young people are especially affected by this, so much so that firearm fatalities consistently rank among the leading causes of death per capita for youth. In 2000, people ages 20 to 24 accounted for almost one-fourth of all victims of homicides with a firearm (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2001). Moreover, there are more suicides than homicides that are committed with firearms. And firearm-related accidents result in many serious injuries.
These grim facts must be interpreted with caution. Firearms are involved in homicides and suicides, but determining how many would have occurred had no firearm been available is at best a difficult task. Between 1980 and 1984 there were more than three times as many nongun homicides per capita in America than in England (Zimring and Hawkins, 1998). There were over 41,000 nongun homicides and over 63,000 gun homicides in the United States during this period. New York City has had a homicide rate that is 8 to 15 times higher than Londons for at least the last 200 years, long before either city could have had its rates affected by English gun control laws, the advent of dangerous drugs, or the supposedly harmful effects of the mass media (Monkkonen, 2001). Thus, the United States arguably has a high level of violence and homicide independent of firearm availability. Nonetheless, today homicides by a firearm occur in
the United States at a rate that is more than 63 times that of England, so firearms, though not the sole source of violence, play a large role in it (Zimring and Hawkins, 1998).
<snip>
Many people reading this report will ask whether the committee favors or opposes gun control, accepts or rejects the right of people to own guns, and endorses or questions the conflicting interpretations of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).
Resolving these issues, though important, is not the task the committee was given. We were asked to evaluate the data and research on firearm violence to see what is known about the causal connection, if any, between firearms on one hand and violence, suicide, and personal defense on the other. In carrying out this task, we have tried to do what scholars are supposed to donamely, assess the reliability of evidence about the ownership of firearms and discern what, if anything, is known about the connection between firearms and violence. This involves looking at not only how many firearms are owned and who owns them but also the complex personality, social, and circumstantial factors that intervene between a firearm and its use and the effect, if any, of programs designed to reduce the likelihood that a firearm will cause unjustified harm.1 It also includes investigating the effectiveness of firearm use in self-defense. It does not include making judgments about whether individuals should be allowed to possess firearms or whether specific firearm control proposals should be enacted.
Questions of cause-and-effect and more-or-less are not how many Americans think about firearms. Some individuals believe that firearm ownership is a right that flows directly from the Second Amendment or indirectly from every citizens right to self-defense. Others believe that there is no right to bear arms, and that firearms play little or no role in self-defense.
<snip>
Our report is not for or against gun control. (We put gun control in quotation marks because it is so vague: gun control can range from preventing four-year-old children from owning guns to banning their ownership by competent adults.) Knowing how strongly so many Americans feel about firearms and various proposals to control or prevent controls on their ownership, we here state emphatically that our task is to determine what can be learned from existing data and studies that rely on them and to make recommendations about how the knowledge base could be effectively improved. Readers of this report should not be surprised that the committee often concludes that very little can be learned. The committee was not called into being to make policy about firearms. Political officials, responding not only to data and studies but also to widely held (and often passionately opposed) public beliefs, will have to make policy. They should do so, however, with an understanding of what is known and not known about firearms and violence.
I'm going to agree with those that observe this conversation isn't informed by rational thought. Its pretty ridiculous the things being said on all sides but more specifically the pro gun people. They don't deal with the reality of their own stance let alone the realities of the world we live in.
Without taking a stance on any side I think we can observe many realities.
Guns can kill people, so can knives, and fists but guns are the best that is why we use them in the military, if they didn't kill people efficiently we wouldn't use them. Heck the argument of having a gun that seems to come up is to kill someone before they kill you as both a point for and against guns.
Leaving studies out of it you can go look up the raw numbers yourselves. America is one of the most gun liberal nations in the world. We also have and extraordinarily high homicide rate for our population. Compare us to Canada who has lots of guns, don't have the same number of homicides relative to registered guns.
America and Canada are the only good examples of countries with lots of weapons. Most other nations with lower homicide rates achieve this easily by reducing the presence of weapons. Most other nations with weapons on par with us or canada don't have them for recreational use so they aren't applicable really.
Observing that my thoughts:
I do think its a combo of the american mindset witch I think is generally more violent. Even in the scope of this thread you see the reason people in america defend the right of gun ownership as the right to shoot someone the majority of the time before they take your purse or your country away from you. Canada is all about guns for Hunting and protection from wild life. Look at our films and how we love to see individual empowerment with a weapon. Its sad because america is an overwhelmingly rural nation and for many rural Americans they want a gun to hunt or fend of predatory animals, look at Alaska, look at middle america.
Far as the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT goes its a bit of BS. The founding fathers didn't envision a standing army when they passed that amendment. We instead have a democratic government and standing army serving it. Its poorly made argument.
Without taking a stance on any side I think we can observe many realities.
Guns can kill people, so can knives, and fists but guns are the best that is why we use them in the military, if they didn't kill people efficiently we wouldn't use them. Heck the argument of having a gun that seems to come up is to kill someone before they kill you as both a point for and against guns.
Leaving studies out of it you can go look up the raw numbers yourselves. America is one of the most gun liberal nations in the world. We also have and extraordinarily high homicide rate for our population. Compare us to Canada who has lots of guns, don't have the same number of homicides relative to registered guns.
America and Canada are the only good examples of countries with lots of weapons. Most other nations with lower homicide rates achieve this easily by reducing the presence of weapons. Most other nations with weapons on par with us or canada don't have them for recreational use so they aren't applicable really.
Observing that my thoughts:
I do think its a combo of the american mindset witch I think is generally more violent. Even in the scope of this thread you see the reason people in america defend the right of gun ownership as the right to shoot someone the majority of the time before they take your purse or your country away from you. Canada is all about guns for Hunting and protection from wild life. Look at our films and how we love to see individual empowerment with a weapon. Its sad because america is an overwhelmingly rural nation and for many rural Americans they want a gun to hunt or fend of predatory animals, look at Alaska, look at middle america.
Far as the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT goes its a bit of BS. The founding fathers didn't envision a standing army when they passed that amendment. We instead have a democratic government and standing army serving it. Its poorly made argument.
And it was also with the help of guns that slaughtered native americans (THE REAL AMERICAN)
Guns didn't win any war, the will of a solider did... risking his/her life to keep what they believed in alive...
And a "REAL MAN", doesn't need a gun to defend himself. Any scared pathetic person can pull a trigger to a gun and end some ones life in the blink of an eye. But its takes a "REAL MAN" to stand in front of his enemies and look in them eyes...
The US has 88.7 guns / 100 residents, which is nearly triple the rate of Canada (30.8 guns/100 residents).
The US has a firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population of 10.27. Canada's is less than half that (4.78).
Switzerland has a lot of guns (45.7 / 100 residents)...but lower firearm-related death-rates (6.4). Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws.
Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.
As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.
Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world.
Matt
The US has a firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population of 10.27. Canada's is less than half that (4.78).
Switzerland has a lot of guns (45.7 / 100 residents)...but lower firearm-related death-rates (6.4). Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws.
Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.
As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.
Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world.
Matt
I encourage you to read up on what the 2nd was written for because you obviously lack knowledge on it.
- Status
