Do Less Guns Really Mean Less Crime?

reply to post by Beavers


You demonstrate all the hypocrisy and ignorance of reality that is central to the anti-gun lobby.

Your entire argument is this: "it doesn't matter if I actually am more safe with guns in the hands of citizens! Whats matters is at I feel more safe."

Meanwhile you claim that pro-gun arguments lack scientific evidence and you ignore the harsh truth that violence among children is occurring with or without access to guns.

I have come to believe that the core motivation for gun banning is an innate desire to give up responsibility for the self. By making a law that prohibits citizens from protecting themselves effectively, that responsibility is put upon government. Generally speaking, of course, those who support increased gun control also believe in big government.

That is my take on the mentality of the masses who support gun bans. As for the motives of the powers that be to ban guns...they are multitudinous.

EarthCitizen07

Daedalus

i had mentioned in another post that the police are not legally responsible for protecting us....that is a very significant point.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person wanting to accept the responsibility for defending themselves...whether it's against a wild bear, or an unstable human being...people have a right to defend themselves, using whatever tool they deem appropriate at the time.

the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

And this is precisely where the american school of thought comes in. Its not good enough to trust the police to save you, therefore its a good idea for people to take the law into their own hands.

I mean there is some hypocrisy here. Why do we have multiple layers of police(township, country sheriff, state, fbi) if they are not even legally responsible for protecting the population? Why do we pay them with our tax money?

In most countries its taken for granted that police take care of security, and people own guns as a hobby such as hunting and target practice. They can also use their gun for home defense if need be.

I support the second amendment and see a deeper reason for it. To protect against tyranny, just like the tyranny of nazis, commies, muslim brotherhood, space aliens, american government consisting of LYING DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, etc. Sooner or later something bad tends to happen and owning a gun helps you.

edit on 25/9/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

yes, that pesky american school of thought...lord knows the lunatics in D.C. have been trying to stamp out any notions of individuality, or free thought, or self determination, or any of the other things that we used to be known for....

i explained all of this in another post...you might wanna give it a read...

basically, the cops can't be everywhere all the time..so who's gonna protect you, if not yourself?

CarlJung

Okay try this:

www.theguardian.com...

'Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.'

'Their findngs, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.'

and once again....you're comparing apples and oranges...

you need to look at violent crime stats..not just deaths with firearms...

i mean....jesus christ...that's like smearing peanut butter on the wall, and then saying "there's a hundred percent more peanut butter on this wall here, than this wall here that has none on it, therefore you're all heathans"

and in addition to violent crime stats, you also hafta look at cultural factors, and the prevalence of psychiatric drug use...

reply to post by Beavers


Ad hominem attacks are the weapons of the weak-minded. You are the biggest cliche of a feelings-first, gun-grabbing, statisitc-warping, my-ideas-are-best-and-should-be-forced-on-everyone liberal in this thread. Possibly on all of ATS.

Like manmade global warming propagandists who exclude solar output from climate models and like Obombies who talk about national debt only in relation to GDP, you pluck a single statistic from the middle of the big picture and cling to it because it serves your emotional, close-minded beliefs.

OF COURSE there are more gun deaths in a country that allows guns versus one that does not. And yes, as alarming as it is, children are unfortunately not invulnerable.
What you either fail to see (or attempt to obscure) is the big picture of violent crime for a nation. The total number of victims of violent crime goes down dramatically in a country that allows private gun ownership. It should be no surprise that compared to countries that do ban guns, fewer people are stabbed and beaten to death while the number of gun deaths is higher.
Additionally, in countries that allow guns we see lower rates of non-violent crimes such as burglary.

Vehicle related deaths and prescription drugs overdoses are two prime examples that kill far more people in America per year than guns do. No one is calling for a ban on either, because nearly all Americans benefit from them daily. In such cases, the benefits obviously outweigh the negative side-affects. To someone who fears and does not understand guns, the benefits are not so obvious.

I stated in my previous post how I think people rationalize gun-bans. Giving up responsibility seems to go hand in hand with the naive desire to feel safe in an unsafe world. Most people choose not to think about the probability of being killed during their commutes, succumbing to cancer, or being murdered over the money in their wallets. They choose not to because it is comforting to ignore our mortality.
My philosophy is to let people do as they wish, so long as it does not interfere with the life of another. To be a little cliche myself, I may not agree with how you wish to live, but I would die defending your right to do so.

That being said, you try and force your lifestyle of defenseless idiocy on me, and it ain't gonna end well.

takaris7
reply to post by greencmp

 

yes for some reason I contiunally see the product of accidental death by firearm.

Nearly 800 children under 14 were killed in gun accidents from 1999 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly one in five injury-related deaths in children and adolescents involve firearms.

Although mass shootings get more attention, children are far more likely to be killed at home.

Through homicide, suicide and accidents, guns cause twice as many deaths in young people as cancer, five times as many as heart disease and 15 times as many as infections, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

ok, and what are the stats for adults?....why just mention children, unless it's a plea to emotion?

and what about the thing that kills more children and adults.....it's another wonderful invention of ours, and like a gun, it also doesn't operate without someone controlling it.....it's called a car...

i always find it amazing that people go on, and on, and on about how many accidental deaths, and suicides, and murders are done with guns, but the NEVER wanna talk about all the accidental deaths, suicides, and murders that are done with cars.....i mean, the ones with cars are FAR more numerous...surely, the cars must be the more serious threat to our citizens, and our nation's children...

lets ban cars....somebody think of the children..

*** ATTENTION ***

STOP THE NAME CALLING AND INSULTS !!!!

THIS MEANS EVERYONE !!!!

YOU WILL BE POST BANNED !!!!

PhoenixOD
reply to post by Daedalus

 

Im discussing facts here while you seems to be trying any and every way to win an argument, its clear you are the one with an agenda.

Guns a facilitate the easy killing of many people at a distance. Sure there would still be violence as your country is known for that, but its much harder to injurer 5-6 people with a drive by stabbing. Or maybe stab half a school full of children or stab up an entire theater.

edit on 25-9-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

"your country is known for that" how very condescending and insulting of you...

those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones..

allow me to direct your attention to the case of Mamoru Takuma, 37, tokyo. in 2001, he snuck into an elementary school, and stabbed 8 kids to death, and wounded 15 other students and teachers....how about that....sandy hook, with a knife.....

it is possible, and it's not limited to just my country. the only agenda i have is to try to get ignorant people like yourself, to stop trying to tell us that we shouldn't have a right to defend ourselves in the best way we can, just because you're afraid of personal responsibility.

ETA: Link to archived copy of original article from the Boston Globe

reply to post by elevatedone


Never mind...I did not notice that a post had been deleted.

Daedalus

takaris7
reply to post by greencmp

 

yes for some reason I contiunally see the product of accidental death by firearm.

Nearly 800 children under 14 were killed in gun accidents from 1999 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly one in five injury-related deaths in children and adolescents involve firearms.

Although mass shootings get more attention, children are far more likely to be killed at home.

Through homicide, suicide and accidents, guns cause twice as many deaths in young people as cancer, five times as many as heart disease and 15 times as many as infections, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

ok, and what are the stats for adults?....why just mention children, unless it's a plea to emotion?

and what about the thing that kills more people and adults.....it's another wonderful invention of ours, and like a gun, it also doesn't operate without someone controlling it.....it's called a car...

i always find it amazing that people go on, and on, and on about how many accidental deaths, and suicides, and murders are done with guns, but the NEVER wanna talk about all the accidental deaths, suicides, and murders that are done with cars.....i mean, the ones with cars are FAR more numerous...surely, the cars must be the more serious threat to our citizens, and our nation's children...

lets ban cars....somebody think of the children..

I wondered about bicycles, 677 people were killed in bike/auto accidents in 2011.
38000 injured. Kinda sounds to me like guns should be under the Christmas tree instead of bicycles.
No dont buy your six year old a gun. People just overreact to things..


The numbers came from bicyclinginfo.org by the way

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71


see, that's what i'm saying....

there are things out there that are far more dangerous than guns, but nobody wants to talk about that, because then they'd hafta concede the notion that guns are the most dangerous thing on the planet...they'd also hafta entertain the notion of giving up an item that provides them with a convenience and comfort...can't have that...

it's all part of the arrogant believe that their opinion is completely correct, and absolute, and that people should only hafta give something up if THEY think it's necessary.

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by Beavers

 

Ad hominem attacks are the weapons of the weak-minded.

Ad Hominem is a tactic used by people who can't win a debate on facts or righteousness and need to resort to attack the source of the information rather than acknowledge the information.

The statistics I showed proved how very wrong your opinion is, but you haven't demonstrated either the intelligence to understand it or the compassion for your fellow man (or even your own children for that matter) to even consider it.

14600 times more likely to have your children shot at than mine and all you care about is your rights, your fears and your need for guns.

To me you're either stupid to ignore this fact, or evil to not care.

So yeah, sure, I insulted you, but it wasn't because I needed to use a tactic to sway your opinion and ad hominem, I insulted you because I was angry that stupid or evil people exist in the world and reacted by giving you my opinion on your inability to even care that your kids would be 14600 times less likely to get shot at if you lived in any other 1st world country in the world.

reply to post by Daedalus

it is possible, and it's not limited to just my country. the only agenda i have is to try to get ignorant people like yourself, to stop trying to tell us that we shouldn't have a right to defend ourselves in the best way we can, just because you're afraid of personal responsibility.

Guns are killing machines, as long as there are guns around people will get shot and in your country that's about equal to a mass shooting every day and that's not including accidental injury by guns.

So you site a case were someone stabbed 8 people, big deal, if they had had an automatic assault rifle the death toll would have been way higher. Its much more difficult to kill multiple people with a knife. If you attack someone with a knife theres a good chance someone will take it off you and kill you first, thats because you have to get in close. It takes a lot effort to kill someone with a knife, unlike with a gun.

If you need a gun to make you feel tough enough to face life that's a pretty sever insecurity which in fact is completely wrong. A gun owner is 4.5 times more likely to be shot..

t Prof Charles Branas and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania examined in their 2009 paper investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. They compared 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident with 684 people living in the same area that had not suffered a gun injury. The researchers matched these "controls" for age, race and gender. They found that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra.

Im sure you will still want to bury your head in the sand, mind you while there are so many guns around in your country its probably the only safe place to put your head. lol

Beavers
reply to post by elevatedone

 

Sorry! I'll try to steer clear of this thread.

I just can't understand why anyone would want their kids to be 14600 times more likely to be shot at and (naturally?) reacted badly.

I sometimes forget how much of a sick world we live in and can't help but get angry at those who genuinely want to make it stay that way!

peace x

Well lets see....
313,000,000 million people in the USA.
8583 gun homicides in 2011. Sourced from your website..
Chances of being murdered? .00002742%

But...
313,000,000 pop,
37485 non prescription drug related deaths in 2011
Chances of drug related death? .00011976%


Your 400 times more likely to die from drug use,,,, hmmm.
We better make heroin illegal!!!! Oh, wait,,


And you say gun owners are retarded!

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

Your 400 times more likely to die from drug use,,,, hmmm.
We better make heroin illegal!!!! Oh, wait,,

How many drive by overdoses have you heard of?

PhoenixOD
reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

 

Your 400 times more likely to die from drug use,,,, hmmm.
We better make heroin illegal!!!! Oh, wait,,

How many drive by overdoses have you heard of?

edit on 25-9-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

The point is chances of dying not intent.
Lets take away gang related gun violence and run the numbers again.

Hoosierdaddy71

PhoenixOD
reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

 

Your 400 times more likely to die from drug use,,,, hmmm.
We better make heroin illegal!!!! Oh, wait,,

How many drive by overdoses have you heard of?

edit on 25-9-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

The point is chances of dying not intent.
Lets take away gang related gun violence and run the numbers again.

You could do people who take drugs who end up dying of drugs versus people who get shot and end up dying. I wonder what the figures would be then?

If you took away the gang violence then there would be even less reason for people to own guns. They wouldn't need them as much for protection against other bad people with guns.

There is no "one fits all" solution. America, Britain, Canada, Australia and the rest of the world must find their own solutions to violence and crime. Making comparisons with other nations is pointless because it all comes down to an assessment of protecting the rights of the law abiding people and what level of force is required to maintain this.

At a much higher level, we can argue that possession of nuclear weapons offers the ultimate protection. There has never been a nuclear strike in anger after World War II. Mutually assured destruction is an excellent deterrent.

But nukes didn't really stop wars, terrorist attacks or even anarchy. And if the truth be known we really wouldn't want those weapons getting into the wrong hands (North Korea, Iran, or worse still a rogue organisation like Al Qaeda). So the solution we possess also presents a problem if it gets into the wrong hands.

Power comes in three forms - information, wealth and brute force. It is that balance of power that is crucial in any challenge or confrontation. Whether that be between individuals, organisations or nation states. The "perceived" balance of that power will always be the driving force in how people feel and think about what level of "protection" they need.