Would our country be a safer place if private citizens were not allowed to own guns?
Every statistic ever put together has shown that violent crime always goes up when private citizens are unable to arm themselves for protection. Just look at Great Britain and Australia.
ANYONE who believes otherwise is delusional or just ignorant.
Hypothetically, it definitely would. Since most citizens are used to having gun ownership backed by law, it would probably cause violence to suddenly change that law. If we slowly moved towards less armed citizens our country would be safer.
Because criminals would follow gun laws, right?
No actually that recycled argument is not right. Most crime isn't committed by the mafia or other organized groups we can easily identify as "criminal". Most gun deaths are accidental or a heat of the moment crime of passion.
You are more likely to dye from a gunshot wound the second you buy a gun. If the well-used criminals prey on unaesthetic citizens argument was correct, then wouldn't the opposite be true?
I'm not sure where you're getting your data, but according to the ATF, from 1993 to 2011 the per capita firearm murder victim rate has dropped from 6.6 to 3.2, While the total number of guns in the US has gone from 192mil to 310mil.
Higher gun ownership rates equals lower firearm murder victim rates.
Temporal sequence does not = causality.
And murder victim can be a misleading stat, especially since it excludes most accidents.
So, you're asserting that we should ban guns because of the accidental death rate?
The whole point of a gun is that it is lethal.
If you were really concerned about the accidental death rate, and not just using that as an excuse to ban guns, then you'd be calling for more training, like the NRA does.
Not just accidental deaths, but also crimes that occur in the heat of the moment. I am not convinced that an armed society is a safer society.
Crimes of passion are considered murder, and as I've shown already, that rate has gone down over the last 20 years, not up. So I'm not really sure where you're going with that.
You may want to look into the results of Australia's gun ban.
Or, as crimes of passion frequently correlate well with crimes against women, I'll also point out that the prob of serious injury by aggr assault is 2.5 times greater for women who do not resist than it is for women who defend themselves with a gun.
Actually, I think you should look onto Australia's gun buy back program. It wasn't a ban as most Australians never had the right to own a gun. Snopes has a good article debunking all the misinformation out there. And no, it did not cause more crime.
Yes, everyone is familiar with snopes' take on the gun ban (previously legal guns were banned-so it was a ban), and guns in general.
I know that they go on about not blaming crime increases on lowered legal gun ownership rates, yadda yadda yadda.
Are you sure you read it?
Yes, it's an old article and has been cited before. All they really demonstrate is that data can be skewed and obscured through the use of simple mathematic tricks like data conversions (from raw results to percentages) and control set deviations.
The prime minister and her supporters all rave about it, while detractors say it has created a nightmare.
Well you do understand how that debunks the oft-cited Australia claim?
No, because antigun folks don't actually address certain claims- or, they only address them in general terms by claiming that you can't blame the rise in certain crimes on gun control.
For example, snopes doesn't address the rise in home invasion.
It's also hard to find specific refutations against the fact of the increase in other crimes which were more likely to be defended against with guns- similar to the armed women's defense stat I posted above.
Instead they just say we can't make the claim that a crime wouldn't have occurred if a legal gun had been in play, because that's just conjecture.
But at the same time, gun ban advocates are making the claim that certain other crimes (crimes of passion in your case) wouldn't occur if not for guns.
So they embrace that tactic when it suits then, but condemn it when it works against them.
And this is why Australia is relevant: because even 10 years after their gun ban, the data still fails to show such a conclusive result that pro and anti gun groups aren't able to bend or twist the facts as needed to declare themselves correct.
Banning guns won't solve anything. As in Australia, it will just create a new set of
Another tactic I like to embrace is comparing gun homicide rates in our country w similar countries that have strict gun control laws. I like to do this because it very clearly demonstrates a simple and obvious fact. Less guns= less gun deaths.
I would love for you to say that the US has the highest gun murder rate in the developed world. I love debunking that.
Or the fact that gun ownership doubles the rate of a gun homicide and increases the rate of gun suicide almost 40x.
The gun lobby plays on people's fears, and that fear leads people to the false conclusion that guns provide safety.
Or how about you repeat the liberal talking point that murder rates are lower in places with more gun laws. I love that one too.
Talking point or empirically-based fact?
Did you really just say tha gun ownership increases the rate of gun suicide? Seriously?
Here's an equally useless statement: Increases in elephant ownership increases the rate of elephant caused death.
It's useful because it demonstrates a simple fact, so obvious that it should almost be hitting you in the face.
Really? More cars= more car related deaths. Are we banning cars?
More multi-family dwellings= higher crime rates overall. Should we ban apartment buildings and duplexes?
You're using scary, but generally useless statistics.
The US doesn't have the highest murder or gun death rates in the world, contrary to Mother Jones and MSNBC. Russia and Brazil have much stricter gun control laws than we do, and their gun murder rates are four to five times higher than ours.
Honduras has the highest rate, at about 65 per 100k, compared to our 3.2 per 100k for guns murders.
Not useless. Many suicides would be prevented if they weren't instantaneous. 2x gun homicide rate, how is that useless?
But Switzerland, on the other hand, has the third highest rate of firearms per capita, and their gun murder rate is .5 per 100k.
Why is that?
Their murder rates are right in line with the gun grabbing meccas of the UK and Canada.
Why is that?
Of course the US doesn't have the highest rate, my money is on Somalia. Speaking of useless statistics, what aspect of our country is comparable to Honduras in any way?
You see, guns aren't the problem, people are the problem.
England has always had a low murder rate- much more so before their gun ban in 1976. Switzerland maintains a low gun murder rate despite high gun ownership.
So guns aren't the issue.
What is relevant is that Honduras is a western, civilized country, and we are a western, civilized country. So when Piers Morgan tells you the US is the worst country in western civilization, you'll remember that he's wrong, or lying.
Anyway, while this has been fun, it is late and I have things to do.
On a side note, you should look into the role of video games and gun violence. I bet we would have a lot of common ground in that area.
Haha maybe... If you think the two are completely unrelated that is. Have a good night.
@vagiant, that has got to be the most ignorant, uneducated statement I have ever heard. The ONLY way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. I just don't understand how NAIVE some people are.
Come on, comppete, I got through a whole conversation with the guy without calling him names or trying to be rude.
I'm neither ignorant or uneducated. There are plenty of other ways to stop a bad guy with a gun. Why do you think hostage negotiators exist? Words have always been more powerful than weapons. Read a book, man.
Vagiant- not everyone is open to negotiation. Meth heads, for example, are invading homes at increasing rates. They don't negotiate, their drug induced state makes them extremely violent, and they're frequently unaware of their own actions.
Rapists are another group that doesn't negotiate. Reread my stat above about women who are passive to attackers vs women who use guns to resist.
Those pacifists would include the aspiring negotiator group.
Also, police negotiators have a measure of success because they have a SWAT team standing behind them.
The criminal knows that if they don't work with the negotiator, the SWAT team will take over.
For the same reason, I recommend that you "negotiate" with an attacker behind the barrel of a gun.
If they walk away, then don't shoot them, and pat yourself on the back for being a good negotiator.
But if negotiations fail, you've got a backup plan.
Or, if you happen to live with MacGuyver, and you have time for him to work his magic with that paperclip, rubber band, and bottle of shampoo, I guess you could go that route.
I would gladly negotiate with someone who pointed a gun at me. I have full confidence in my ability to find out what they want and give it to them peacefully. Except for serial killers, no one has reason to want me dead. However, I do understand...
Certain situations where force is necessary. I just fully reject the bad guy with a gun/ good guy with a gun argument. It is an absurd generalization and I hear it all the time.
What if they want your daughter?
What if they want your silence and your incapacitation to be sure you don't call the police?
At some point, you have to accept that an attacker may want something you won't give them.
That's why you have a gun.
Correct, our fundamental difference is that I think simply owning a gun is more likely to be a risk than some hypothetical violent scenario. In that situation, I'd want a gun. In my own life, I think it is more likely that the gun itself is a danger.
It's not that I am against guns. I like shooting and was in the army. It's just that my interpretation of the world leads me to believe that guns make us more fearful, and actually less safe.
I think you're confusing a personal assessment with a public policy.
Let people own their guns. As long as you aren't breaking into their homes, it isn't going to personally affect you.
Nope, I read the thread. I have concluded, that I was correct in my initial comment. vagiant is the kind of person that will debate (argue) common sense and logic just to be indifferent. This, to me, is ignorance at best,
ergo, Red is not really red. At least, can I say he is annoying?
This is all personal opinion. I don't care enough about it to advocate a total ban. I just happen to believe if we had less guns we would be safer in that one small aspect of things that are dangerous.
Comppete don't you have other things you could be doing? Like not being a d-bag in a civil discussion.
Much more dangerous.
Definitely not! The thought of only the bad guys having guns is pretty scary.
Look at Australia! They've warned Americans not to trust gun control! Crime is way up now because of it. Notice most homes have iron gates around them there now?
Funny this just doesn't get reported in the US.
The people who vote yes must be on the propaganda band wagon. Guns are protected. Period.
That wasn't the question - the question was about if they weren't protected
I am stating they are protected and our citizens would never allow the gov to take away our right to bear arms. It is protected.
As a non-gun person I'm curious about those who voted yes and the rationale? Do you truly believe that no guns would be possessed by private citizens?
I would love to hear it too.
Even from someone who does care for guns - my answer is no
No. It would take guns away from good people and if you think the black market gun dealers will ever go dry, you are kidding yourself.
No. It'd be more dangerous.
Criminals aren't gunna just stop having guns.