reply to post by Grimpachi
Originally posted by Grimpachi
I am not that out of the ordinary. It just proves that there is a need for them. What is an acceptable number of people being victimized in your
opinion to warrant disarmament? For me I don’t believe anyone should be victimized when it is preventable.
I’m sorry, but I’ve met dozens of Americans in my short life and no one has had quite the experiences you’ve had. I know this is in no way makes
it a hard fact but the stories you’ve told me sound like something I’d expect out of a third world nation, not a first world nation like the
So let me ask you something. Why does the United States have one of the highest (if not the highest) rates of gun related violence in the entire
To me the main reason is simply the amount of guns within the general population. There will be of course other reasons such as the appalling
education levels, low job prospects etc which will and do increase the amount of crime. But why so much gun related crime if not for the amount of
guns available to the general populace?
As for you question as to what is the acceptable number of people victimised to warrant disarmament well my answer is 0. I do not see any reason why
anyone should own a tool whose sole purpose is to end the life of another. You may bring up farmers protecting livestock or people who live out near
wilderness and the question of protection from wild animals and my answer to that is if you choose to make a living or indeed live in such areas then
you have invaded their territory and therefore it is a risk you are simply going to have to accept.
Murder and violence are far more easily committed with a gun than any other hand-held weapon. Obviously there are deeper issues as to why the US is
such a violent place in comparison to other first world countries but the ease of available weapons certainly doesn’t help this situation. It is my
opinion that because owning and using a gun has become so normalized in US society it actually blinds you to the harm that having a society completely
saturated with guns is causing.
I am not so sure about that. No one has shown me statistics or studies that prove that. Owning weapons in Israel is commonplace more so than here yet
crime rate is lower than the UK.
As you can see the United States is (of course) tops of the list in terms of 1st World countries when it comes to homicide by gun at 3.7/100,000 head
of population, more than four times higher than the second 1st world county of that list being Canada with a rate of 0.76 homicides per 100,000. So
there’s the stats.
As for Israel, it actually has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world with only 7.3 guns per 100 citizens compared with 88 guns per
hundred citizens as seen in the United States. No wonder the crime rate is far less.
This invalidates BOTH your arguments.
There are many more that are worse look at Honduras where firearms are illegal to the public but the criminals have them actually most of central and
South America is like that but crime, violence, and gun death is statistically higher than the US. It is probably better to compare country’s that
are actually in the same region anyway.
Don’t even try and compare Honduras to the United States. We are talking about first world developed countries here, although reading your stories
and seeing the news I’m beginning to get the feeling maybe the US doesn’t deserve that status anymore…
I’m sorry but third hand information from your uncle just doesn’t cut it. I need some sort of hard data if this discussion is to progress. But
even if what you say is completely true there are much better solutions against the Mexico problem than simply arming every citizen of the United
States with a gun.
It is easy enough to find I am actually surprised you didn’t know it’s on the news all the time.
First hits from google
Just google plenty of info there.
These are once again one off news stories and prove nothing more than your stories from your uncle. As for ‘googling it’, you cannot expect me to
the research to support your argument.
I have, please check my above post to you.
That is a skewed graph which only shows gun death. If each country has a hundred killings but 1 is all by gun and the other is 20 by gun and the rest
by knife the problem is still the same. Different tools were used but the same murders happened. Taking away guns didn’t solve anything. It just
made it to where some people couldn’t protect themselves. It makes the problem worse.
The graph is not skewed, it paints a very clear picture. HOWEVER, this is not what I’ve been referring you to the past two times you’ve asked me
this question. You may want to click the link and see. Here, let me make it easy for you.
What I wrote was this
Just because something is hard to do, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. Besides, you guys are both looking at it from the wrong angle. In
Australia after our last massacre in 1996 the government outlawed sporting firearms, including all semi-automatic rifles including .22 rimfires,
semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. They instituted a ‘buy back’ scheme and people voluntarily surrendered their guns. They got
about 600, 000 of them. In 2003 they started and handgun buy back scheme for target arms of greater than 9mm calibre and got around 50,000.
Now no one believes they even got 1/3 of all the newly outlawed weapons, but the ones left behind are now closely guarded and hidden and as the owners
know they will not ever be able to buy them ever again. So they too have been effectively removed from circulation. Nor can you source bullets for
As these remaining weapons are hidden they are now no longer stored within the home which has significantly reduced accidental gunshot injuries
especially amongst children. Suicide by firearm rates are also down significantly as they are not easily accessible by anxty teens with a grudge
against the world. I can see this having some impact on school massacres in the States for the same reason.
So yes it works, just not quite in the way you guys think it should. No one’s sending in the troops to collect all the weapons, it’s all
completely voluntary. But when you can’t buy bullets or take them down to the range to practice or display them in your homes they slowly become
After these schemes were implemented the crime rate in Australia for gun related violence (namely robbery and homicide) began dropping and despite
yearly fluctuations the trend overall has continued to drop.
Here is the supporting data
In this graph notice the distinct plunge the trend line takes after the gun buy back scheme was implemented in 1996
Now please show me some hard data which describes a country where gun
violence has increased after severe restrictions upon firearms were
imposed, otherwise I will consider this simply NRA propaganda.
I keep here this statement yet no one seems to be providing any data to back up these claims. And until this happens I am simply going to dismiss this
clam as NRA propaganda.
Almost every gun thread on here has shown the data. I am tired right now if you can’t find it by tomorrow I will post it for you.
what the hell you can start reading there. All the info is real easy to find if you look. thousands and thousands of hits when you google.
See this is the sort of facts I’m wanting out of you. Good stuff. What I will say to this however is that yes states which would allow one to carry
a concealed firearm probably do have (30% I think I read) surficially lower crime rate but this rate is still far higher than it should be when
compared to the rest of the developed world. Also I do consider the article biased as it comes from a pro-gun Republican source.
Again a little hard data would be nice, but this claim I do actually believe. The problem here is creating ‘gun free zones’ within a country
saturated with guns is paramount to a bad joke. If you want to implement an effective solution it has to be done on a nationwide basis.
You mean gun free cities and states. Considering some states are as big as others countries I think it is a good indicator of what will happen with a
ban. Also keep in mind disarming America would be impossible and spark off more violence than our civil war. Another case of cure being worse than the
Like I said if you can show some honest data showing less guns significantly reduced murders and crime you may have a point but no one has provided
that in any thread.
Done – above.
Also when I mean disarmament I mean voluntary. Read how it has played out in Australia in my above post. No one is going to send in the army to
retrieve every single gun. No one is going to kid themselves that every single gun will be surrendered. But those which are left behind rarely if ever
will see the light of day again and are effectively removed from circulation.
edit on 27/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)