reply to post by BenReclused
OK I finally got around to reading the article,
I have a few issues with it and Ill try to address and counter them all.
1) First off is that areas with higher concentrations of guns have lower crime rates.
My issue with this is that they are 2 totally unrelated facts, Gun ownership is densest in rural areas, across the whole world Crime rates are always
higher in cities than in country areas so I personally dont see this as something to support guns being a factor.
2) The rise in gun ownership coincided with a drop in crime,
As the article states that in the same period that crime dropped the prison population rose by more than 400%.
While most of this increase was petty criminals such as drug users I would hazard a guess that most of the crime that dropped would have been
burglary, armed robbery, Auto theft etc etc. In other words the kind of crimes you would associate with drug addicts.
Once again I doubt that gun ownership had anything to do with the drop n crime
3) The use of European statistics to justify Gun ownership
Its stated several times in the article the correlation between high (by European standards not American ones) gun ownership rates and lower crime
rates and vice versa.
Norway with its high gun and low crime rates and England the opposite.
In Norway crime has never been an issue, this is mainly due to socio economic reasons. Norway is a fairly homogenous well educated and socially stable
country. Also not noted is the fact that by far and away the vast majority of gun owners are in rural areas and used for hunting, hand guns are rare
and almost all gun crime is committed with stolen weapons.
As noted Britain has now overtaken the US statistically in violent crimes and has a ban on guns, the ban on guns came as a result of the rising crime
rate and not the other way around.
Records show that the large increase in violent crime started roughly a generation after the first major influx of immigrants to the country. Today
although making up only 12% of the population 48% of violent crime is the result of 1st generation Britons.
To be honest I think that article used a lot of figures, statistics, and words to say exactly nothing!!!!!!
It even concludes at the end using Europe as an example that statistics dont mean much as their are countries with higher crime and lower gun rates,
high crime high gun rates, and every other combination so you can basically cherry pick a country to suit your argument.
It was interesting reading but isnt going to change anyones mind either way.
Im sticking by my original argument that gun ownership unless for hunting is unnecessary and even counter productive.
1) it desensitises people to gun use
2) It makes more guns available through robbery and theft to criminals who may otherwise not have the finances to purchase one on the black market
3)Its a fact that gun crime is highest in America which also has the highest amount of guns, as people have pointed out an armed citizen is a more
confident citizen ut the same is also true of criminals.
4) It takes alot less courage to kill someone with a gun which is impersonal than it does with for example a knife.
5) more guns equal more accidental gun deaths which is also a fact.
Once again if you want to won a gun its your right but please dont think or tell me it makes you or anyone else safer.
While researching this I came across an article that may be of interest to you, it points out that gun owners are more likely to die by shooting than
the non gun owners
Household gun rates
Basically statistics can show whatever you want them to.
I noticed an article on here today about 5 different gun murders in the US over the past 24 hrs. You come across as an intelligent guy, I just cant
understand how you can be pro gun
edit on 14-4-2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)