It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Think more guns equals less violence? Think again.

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: NavyDoc
But that's incorrect. Mexico and Venezuela have some of the strictest gun control laws in the western hemisphere and some of the largest most brutal crimes.

The Swiss and the Czech Republic have almost USA levels of gun laws and ownership and crime much less than that of the UK.

You don't even have your facts straight.


Canadian gun laws aren't particularly strict, either, and most of what's available in the US is also available there. Hell, I didn't realize this until a few weeks ago, but apparently they don't even restrict magazine capacity on rimfire rifles; you can buy a 110 round drum magazine for your 10/22 right off the Cabelas Canada website. They've also got a fair number of guns and gun owners, and most estimates put the number of privately held firearms around 10 million. And yet, the Canadian homicide rate usually runs about 1.5 per 100,000.

And just to add something, there's really no reason to compare the US to other societies. The simple fact is, not all areas of the US are created equally when it comes to homicides. Most of them are occurring in the urban centers, which make up only a very small portion of the geographic area of the country. The vast majority of the country has a homicide rate that's not too far off that of Western Europe. Its that the urban centers are skewing the overall numbers sharply upward.


Correct. The urban centers skew the numbers quite a bit. Swedes in Minnesota, for example, have the same risk of homicide as Swedes in Sweden.




posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Yes...the mass murderers in Australia resorted to burning, beating or stabbing their victims to death instead of shooting....seems criminals can still get guns too.....ban fire NOW in Australia!



Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.

Sef Gonzales - On July 10, 2001, Sef Gonzales bludgeoned to death his sister, mother and father with a baseball bat.

Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7 February 2009.[5]

Lin family murders - On July 2009, Lian Bin "Robert" Xie killed his sister, her husband and three members of their family (5 persons from the Lin family) with a hammer. The faces of the victims were so disfigured that forensics had to be used to identify them. The motivation for the family massacre were partly because Lin had criticised Xie for not having a job.

2011 Hectorville siege - A mass shooting that took place on Friday, April 29, 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, went on a shooting rampage, killing three people and wounding a child and two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour siege.[6]

Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18 November 2011.[7]

Cairns stabbings - A woman stabbed 8 children to death on Friday, 2014, December 19, 2014, 7 of them were her own.[8]

edit on 7/14/15 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

All big cities have violence and gun issues--the difference is that Chicago's was allowed to metastasize due to it's overbearing gun control for so long.

Stop pretending that the violence isn't a cultural instead of a gun issue, and stop kidding yourself that things are meant to change overnight when changes are made.

Not one person will ever claim that criminals will stop committing acts of illegal violence if citizens have the right to own guns for protection (because we all know that most citizens don't want to or aren't willing to be proactive in gun ownership)...but at least those who want to protect themselves can. The criminals will still prey on the weak or retaliate against other criminals, regardless of gun laws.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
To ALL supporters of our 2nd Amendment rights.....Hooray! Hooray! To ALL the ones who want it taken away.........Petition Congress until you have the Constitution amended and our 2nd Amendement rights taken away.......Until then why not just STFU. You aint beating a dead horse...your beating a damn wasted away carcus. A gun saved my life & took anothers, all by my hand. Without that gun in my hand, my kids would be fatherless and my wife would be a widow. Alcohol & prescription drugs kill more people per year than gun deaths in America.....let's outlaw the real killers.
edit on 14-7-2015 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
The white homicide rate is similar to other European countries
The fact gun grabbers came after long arms and their add on features is all the proof one needs to see the true agenda of gun grabbers. Rifles are not used often in murders. Rifles are a threat to the state not citizens.
If gun grabbers wanted to pass some illegal bill to stop gun deaths that would work why not just pass a bill to arrest any suspected gang member and throw them in prison for life.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Yes...the mass murderers in Australia resorted to burning, beating or stabbing their victims to death instead of shooting....seems criminals can still get guns too.....ban fire NOW in Australia!




Yeah, people still get stabbed all the time in Australia. But fact is, your far more likely to survive getting stabbed than getting shot. Plus a person can't just rock up on the street and randomly take out 15 strangers with a knife.

Anyway.... Its kind of ironic that the people who are most passionate about not having stricter gun restrictions, claim that nearly all gun homicides are due to gang violence (not that I've ever seen any stats to confirm that), then have a story about how a gun saved there life. Like, wouldn't it just make basic common sense to create restrictions that would make it far less likely the criminal you (apparently) had to protect yourself from was armed?

btw, if you've got the money and are determined enough, then of course you can illegally buy a gun in Australia. But the majority of 'petty criminals' either can't afford them or want to risk the harsh prison sentence you can get for having them. Plus, my understanding is that the bullets are usually harder to obtain than the actual gun.

In reality, its not like the second amendment even exists anymore in the US anyway. If you get caught and convicted for a bag of weed, you don't have the right to own a gun. Or if you are involved in a domestic dispute, they'll take your guns off ya. Also if your officially being treated for a mental disorder.

The second amendment argument makes absolutely no sense, unless you think that 'all' adult US citizens should be free to buy fully automatic assault rifles, without any restrictions whatsoever. But, if your capable of a realistic thought process and know that some people can't be trusted owning firearms. Then there's no logical reason why you'd not be open to enacting a few basic restrictions that would make it harder for crazy people to obtain firearms.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
It's simple logic - less guns = less gun violence.

In the 1980's, Margaret Thatcher had a complete gun recall in the UK after a school shooting.

There's not been one since.


Oh dear god.

There has never been a "complete gun recall" in the UK.

Thatcher's government restricted centrefire rifles, not handguns. This was a decade before Dunblane (the school massacre).

There wasn't a school shooting after handguns were restricted in 1996. On the other hand, there wasn't a school shooting in the UK in the hundreds of years of legal ownership prior to 1996 either. So, there's actually hundreds of years of evidence supporting the gun owners while there's less than 20 years of evidence supporting the gun control crowd. Even that shooting would likely have been prevented if the rules had been followed correctly.

Despite the ban on handguns, the UK still has plenty of legitimate gun crime - by legitimate, I mean "actual gun crime with actual guns where people get shot", as opposed to "incidents with toy guns that are used to inflate the figures". In fact, since the handgun ban, we've had people killed with fully-automatic firearms (that were never capable of being legally owned in the UK) and police officers killed in a pistol & grenade attack. You read that right. We've had police attacked with hand grenades. Not by terrorists, not in a war zone, but by one of our own home-grown WASP thugs in a quiet residential area.

We've had quite a few officers shot in the line of duty in the last 20 years by guns that apparently we "don't have".

The lower gun crime figures will reflect the impact of tighter vetting procedures, that's perfectly true, but really don't try and hold the UK up as an example that banning firearms stop them being used in crime. It's not only naive, it's wrong.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It isn't scary IF you have guns now IS IT?
THEY are scared of our guns too.
TO most of the country its a prepheral issue violence wise.
In Larger cities I wouldn't know ,SANE people should avoid them ,THEY cause madness themselves.
edit on 14-7-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: peter vlar

So basically what you are saying is you have no faith in the police for protection,the society you live in is scary and you feel the need to be armed to the teeth for your own safety...am i even close ?


You don't know where and how we live, do you? I'll tell you a little story from my childhood.

The psycho that lived across the street decided to rob the small convenience store down the street with a shotgun. The store owner drew his pistol and shot him during the robbery. The psycho dropped the shotgun and ran up the street...falling in front of my house. As he was dying, we called the police. They arrived 30 minutes later, just in time to take pictures of his dead body, call the ambulance, the coroners office, and begin interviewing us neighbors.

So, you tell me, how did the police protect that store owner?
So, you tell me, how did the police protect us neighbors?

The answer is they didn't because they were called after the fact, after the crime was committed, and arrived after the threat was neutralized. Their job was to figure out what happened, log it, and call in someone to clean up the mess.

Police are not protectors, they are investigators.

Can you understand that...am I even close?

edit on 7/14/2015 by Krakatoa because: fixed fat finger stuff



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Settle down .....if you had read further you would see the part where i say that it is difficult to understand the reasoning as i am on the outside looking in....

And you will find police in the western world do not protect their citizens,that is a thing of the past...police have been corporatised,if you look through my threads you will see one that basically states that police are nothing more than revenue collectors and like you say investigators.......

And quite frankly i am glad i do not understand as i would hate to live somewhere i needed to be armed so i can feel secure at home or when i am out



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
And you will find police in the western world do not protect their citizens,that is a thing of the past...police have been corporatised,if you look through my threads you will see one that basically states that police are nothing more than revenue collectors and like you say investigators.......


That pretty much sums it up, revenue collection and paperwork processors with the former being their primary motivator.

And quite frankly i am glad i do not understand as i would hate to live somewhere i needed to be armed so i can feel secure at home or when i am out


As I said in my earlier reply to you, it's not a need to feel secure as much as it is a preference to be prepared. It's like the condom analogy...better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.

I can't speak for everyone though. Some people are more strict adherents to the constitution and bill of rights and that is their primary rationale for having arms, some people are scared and want to protect themselves. I find though that the majority of gun owners tend to be varying degrees of the former mixed with being sporting shooters or hunters.

For me personally, being in the military essentially made me a cripple at a young age and I would rather be armed knowing that with my weapon of choice, I'm good out to 300 yards with iron sites instead of taking a chance of close quarters, hand to hand combat with an individual of unknown capabilities.

It's pragmatism and an awareness of my physical limitations moreso than any type of a fear response. You add all of that with the knowledge of how long it will take the Sherriff's dept. to show up...I would prefer to be prepared for most eventualities than be unprepared and caught between a rock and a hard place.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   


It seems to be going pretty good, Illinois has over double the population density of Texas yet a lower rate of gun murders per 100,000. Obviously its because they have a lower rate of gun ownership.



Do you even understand that table ? It states that the murder rate in Illinois is about the same as Texas despite the fact that Texas has 50% MORE guns

Wyoming's got 60% gun ownership, the highest in the US, but among the lowest murder rates in the US
edit on 14-7-2015 by M5xaz because: typo



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz



It seems to be going pretty good, Illinois has over double the population density of Texas yet a lower rate of gun murders per 100,000. Obviously its because they have a lower rate of gun ownership.



Do you even understand that table ? It states that the murder rate in Illinois is about the same as Texas despite the fact that Texas has 50% MORE guns


Actually Texas has just under 50% more guns (Illinois 20%, Texas 35%, gun ownership). Also, Illinois has 2.8 gun murders per 100,000, where as Texas has 3.2 per 100,000 people, so not quite the same. But population density obviously plays a large role in how many violent crimes you'd expect as normal. So considering that.... Illinois has 231.9 inhabitants per square mile, where as Texas only has 98.07 inhabitants per square mile. So obviously Texas is a more violent state when you consider population density.




Wyoming's got 60% gun ownership, the highest in the US, but among the lowest murder rates in the US


The whole state of Wyoming has only half a million people and a population density of only 5.8 per square mile. So obviously its an irrelevant example to compare to the more populated states, when it comes to firearm crime statistics.
edit on 15-7-2015 by Subaeruginosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: LionOfGOD

sadly america has had the title up until the kenya college shooting i think with the school bombing not shooting of the late 50's in usa was worst for a long time? or was it earlier>? norway was a terrible thing too dont get me wrong but i think africa has the title now uncontested with over 149 killed at a college in kenya,dont blame you for thinking yours was more important or disastrous as no one ever seems to remember africa exists i guess you could argue for wounded knee being the worst but i dont think they were at a school www.bbc.com...
edit on 15-7-2015 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Speaking for myself, I'm all in favor of 'common sense' (I love that term; it implies if you don't agree with me, you lack common sense) restrictions designed to prevent criminals and nut jobs from acquiring firearms. But I think part of 'common sense' is also recognizing and respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens and understanding that those people aren't doing anything wrong and shouldn't have their rights curtailed. Once you start lumping everyone into your restriction and assuming everyone is guilty until proven innocent, then I think you're much less in the realm of 'common sense' and more in that of paranoia.
edit on 15-7-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Yeah, but sometimes paranoia is a perfectly healthy reaction.

I remember one time some brainless idiot (who was licensed) hooked my brother up with over 100 rounds for my granddads .22 rifle. Like seriously... for over 40 minutes straight, well I was just peacefully trying to watch tv, my little brother was out there just going BANG, BANG f#ing BANG!!!! Who the f# knows what that little moron was shooting at?

Just to be completely honest, I was petrified the whole time I was gonna catch a bullet!

As much as I love my little bro, it just makes me cringe that such an irresponsible person would be completely free to buy a semi-auto assault rifle in the US, with as much rounds as he desired.
edit on 15-7-2015 by Subaeruginosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: vor78

I remember one time some brainless idiot (who was licensed) hooked my brother up with over 100 rounds for my granddads .22 rifle. Like seriously... for over 40 minutes straight, well I was just peacefully trying to watch tv, my little brother was out there just going BANG, BANG f#ing BANG!!!! Who the f# knows what that little moron was shooting at?


So the moral of the story was that he managed to enjoy shooting a rifle without needing to kill anyone in the process?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

If you were concerned, you should have checked to see what he was shooting at.

There are certainly irresponsible idiots out there, I'm not going to deny that, but that's not true of most people. And while paranoia may have its virtues in individual cases, I don't think it makes for good public policy. Again, I don't have an issue with restrictions on known problem cases, but I can't support applying it to everyone, regardless of their guilt or innocence. That goes against everything I believe with regards to governance and the legal system, whether its this issue or any other.

As far as the 'assault rifle' issue is concerned, statistically, they're a drop in the bucket of yearly homicides in the US. You can ban them, but its not going to make a dent in the homicide stats; in fact, given that rifles of all kinds are only used in about 3% of the yearly homicides in the US, a ban would probably be indistinguishable from the usual year-to-year variance in the total homicide statistics. In other words, it would have no noticeable effect on homicides. The only real effect of a ban would be to strip away the rights of 10-20 million people who own them legally and responsibly.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Well, we have 7 B people and we have no predators beyond ourselves, what is the rub about too many guns? Our #s are too many already!

Let's be honest here, the reason you don't want guns out of the public's hands is simple as the gov't would run roughshod over the populace.

Don't believe me? How many unarmed non white people need to executed by cops for you to see the truth?!

Saying that more guns equals more chance for a dangerous situation is an exercise of the obvious. What's next, stats that say you're more apt to drown if you get a pool in a backyard? More apt to die in a car accident if you drive a car? That most shark bites happen close to the shore?

Open up your mind, even w/o guns we'd still kill each other. At least with guns we're able to resist the wholesale slaughter based on gov't edicts and the whims of madmen with tools more effective than harsh language, bull horns and sit-ins.

Derek



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join