Do Less Guns Really Mean Less Crime?

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
There are some interesting manipulations of some very obvious facts in this study. In your stated examples please find:

The Luxemburg vs Germany comparison is a PER CAPITA ratio. Luxemburg only has 500,000 people in it, where Germany has around 82 million people. There were only 9 deaths from gun crimes in Luxemburg from their latest data. There were 903 in Germany in the same period.

Russia has one of the highest rates of alcoholism, gang warfare, illegal arms trades and corrupt enforcement agencies in the world. Obviously, gun crimes are a major component of that.

The USA however, given as a comparison with Russia's failings, actually has a statistically similar gun crime rate than Russia, due to having comparably lower figures in all areas mentioned above.

As a UK resident I can state that the USA has more gun deaths in a day than we do in a whole year, even accounting for a per capita comparison.

The study is either flawed or misleading or both. Greater gun ownership equates to more gun deaths. This is a fact.




posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Beavers
 


You cannot compare the rates of gun crime between countries with and without guns. This is another fault in your logic.

Instead, one should look at murder rates, rapes, robberies, muggings, and other violent crimes.

Statistically, countries with armed civilians have less of these types of crime.


You just continue to miss the point.


But, to humor you, why don't YOU show me the comparison you wish me to see? You are making the claim, the burden of proof is on YOU.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TerraLiga
 


Can you back up your claims or should we all just believe you?

The ONLY way to properly compare is to do a per-capita comparison. We can't compare land mass, or flat-rate crime. We must to a per-capita comparison to see a true representation of the facts.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Did you just "I know you are , but what am I" me??

I'm saying I want less dead kids, which your need for guns is creating and you're trying to suggest I'm the one who doesn't care about the kids with school yard logic?

If this carries on, I may well just have to insult you again



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


My 2 cents on this whole gun control thing is rather simple.

Here in Denmark we have some of the most strict control laws in the world. And hey, its working. The murders a year here with guns are always a single digit, and it is almost always gang members on both side of the gun.

Now on the other hand, this would not work in America. As far as I have read the large majority of gun killings in the U.S are with non registered guns. Thats one thing.
The other thing is that there are already so many guns in your country, both registered and non registered, that taking all registered guns away, would not do a thing. Other than make far more people vulnerable to people who do have guns. Illegal gun trading is already so big in the U.S that the government can not stop it.

The last thing, and I would really like to make this clear. Murderers will murder, take their guns away, they will use a knife, take their knives away, they will use their fists. You can not blame guns for high crime rates, you can only blame the people doing the crimes. A weapon is a tool, for hunting, for protection, for killing. Depending on whose hands it is in. It is as simple as that. I keep going back to the well known line: "Guns do not kill people, people do." It really is that simple.

You want lower crime rates? Stop the criminals, dont focus on gun owners as a group when the large majority of them are good people.

If I had a gun, I would not automaticly turn into a killer and start shooting all over the place. It would be safely locked away in a gun cabinet untill I had use for it. Be it hunting or in the worst case scenaria, someone breaks into my home and threatens my safety.

Also, IF I were a psycho killer/rapist, I would think twice before commiting a crime, if I knew there was a high chance of my potential victim carrying a gun. Just saying.
edit on 23-9-2013 by needlenight because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


I'm not trying to compare gun crimes, I'm saying violent crimes in other countries are more likely to end up with bruises than with dead people and asking you why my family should be at risk simply because there are people like you in the world who don't care?



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Beavers
 


Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler..................

How many dead kids were victims of those men? How many adults died in their "gun free" utopias?

It could never happen again right?

Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur, Myanmar.......... that list could go on forever.

Maybe you think it couldn't happen in a "Western country"? If so you have a bit of racism in that heart of yours. You may not goose step, but you do hold your peoples above others.

A gun is a tool. End of story. Not an evil child killing demon.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

TinkerHaus
Despite trying over and over to show that crime rates and gun ownership rates do no correlate, I was unable to convince these people to even CONSIDER that guns are not the reason violent crimes happen.



Next time you're discussing this with folks from the UK, remind them that their own parliament a few years back was considering a banning of kitchen knives, as they were the highest likely weapon to be used in crimes of passion.

Hmmm. Could this be becuase there were no guns available, but the impulse to enact a crime still was, so the next best thing was grabbed and used ?

Had that law been passed (to my knowledge it hasn't), it would have left people cooking with SCISSORS to use as culinary implements. Great idea.

How long do you think it would take before studies showed that scissors were the highest likely weapon to be used in a crime of passion?

Makes me wonder where an when chopsticks come up on that list....or a mortar and pestle...or...a rolling pin.

Let's just outlaw EVERYTHING and make it so that sharp sticks and stones end up on the list of highly probably weapons used in crimes of passion


Great post, OP. Great post.



- SN

- SN



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Here's a statistic for you. Over 99% of convicted murderers drank milk when they were babies. That's all I have to say about statistics



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Double post
edit on Mon September 23rd, 2013 by damwel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

TinkerHaus
reply to post by TerraLiga
 

Can you back up your claims or should we all just believe you?

No, you don't have to 'just' believe me, you can check out the stats yourself on gunpolicy.org

The Harvard study (having just read it) is also misleading in that it is a study on "violent crime" not simply on gun-related crimes. It doesn't make a correlation between these and gun crimes, or whether a gun was used or not. I can't actually find a totally valid point to this study. To make it worthwhile as a dataset it should differentiate between crimes using a gun and crimes that do not between different countries based on their gun ownership policies.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Everyone keeps throwing the high gun murder statistic around, but no one mentions the demographic make up of the persons committing these crimes, nor the fact that their weapons were no purchased legally. Police officers have guns, why is no one concerned? Someone will say "well they are trained, blah blah blah" So are you saying that your attitude towards persons carrying a gun would change if they all had proper training? Im sure the answer would still be no, so you anti gun nuts need to determine why you hate guns so much in the hands of law abiding citizens



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


America is pretty much considered the aggressor in the world right now.

Explain exactly how these gun carrying citizens have prevented the millions of dead women and children in the Middle East since Bush Snr?

Yes, murderers will always find a way, but if you think it's just as hard to prevent someone stabbing you than it is shooting you from 100 yards away, I'd wager you weren't qualified to join in this debate!



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TerraLiga
 


No, incorrect.

You cannot compare rates of gun crime between countries that have guns, and countries that do not.

That would be like comparing the rate of vehicle accidents between the US and some Amazon tribe.

Instead, if we want to remove guns from society to REDUCE rates of crime, we must determine if crime rates actually decrease when we remove guns. The statistics show the opposite.

How is this lost on people?



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
One thing that no one has brought up is that the cities that have the highest violent crime rates are the cities with the STRICTEST GUN CONTROL LAWS. Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago etc.etc. Areas that have loosened their gun laws have seen crime rates drop. You don't hear too much about this because a few things. One the MSM has their agenda. Two the police unions don't want this reported because a drop in crime can mean a drop in police employment. It can also lead to a drop in Federal and State funding, which equals the same thing.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

JIMC5499
One thing that no one has brought up is that the cities that have the highest violent crime rates are the cities with the STRICTEST GUN CONTROL LAWS. Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago etc.etc. Areas that have loosened their gun laws have seen crime rates drop. You don't hear too much about this because a few things. One the MSM has their agenda. Two the police unions don't want this reported because a drop in crime can mean a drop in police employment. It can also lead to a drop in Federal and State funding, which equals the same thing.


This is a great point.

I live in Salt Lake City, Utah. We have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the country. If you go to Walmart you're going to see a few people open carrying, almost all the time. Who knows how many people are concealed carrying? I know I am.

We have some of the lowest rates of violent crimes in the country, as well. And a few years ago, I think in 2007, when someone tried to shoot up Trolley Square, an armed off-duty police officer (armed as a civilian, with a CCW) was able with the help of a civilian to stop the shootings.

But this scenario is pure fantasy, and only happens in the mind of rabid gun-nuts, right?

An armed civilian was also partially responsible for ending the Clackamas Mall shooting... But we hardly ever hear about this.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Beavers
 


The second amendment of the Constitution allows the citizens to arm themselves against a tyrannical government.

The US government is out of control I admit that fully. However, blame that on the gun grabbers as they are the ones in power right now. YOUR comrades. YOUR fellow gun haters. Birds of a feather my friend.

That second amendment allows us to defend ourselves from that out of control government.

The US government is not attacking the citizens (yet)
The US government IS trying to disarm the citizens.

You have argued for the exact reason Americans need our guns. Thank you



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
if having more guns makes you safe.. the u.s. should be the safest country in the world..its clearly not
the problem is unsolvable at this point, too many careless and untrained owners is a problem..as noted about 500 children die every year because some dip# didnt know how to care for and stow away his weapon. how do you fix that..how about a simple training/saftey course..will that solve all gun problems..no, will it help..of course
im not a so called gun grabber, have as many as you like but i dont think it would hurt to have some training as to saftey and storage..keep them out of the hands of kids and theives
edit on 23-9-2013 by vonclod because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-9-2013 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Self defense is an inherent right of being born. It doesn't take a country, a
constitution, or a consensus, to know innately that this is true.

If those who will do you harm would avail themselves of a weapon, then you
not only have the right, but an obligation, to avail yourself similarly.

It is the errand of a fool to relegate the protection of yourself to another.
Police cannot protect your from criminals; countries and armies cannot
protect your from war--they can only act as deterrents to crime and
invasion.

Only you can protect yourself.


On topic...if there were no guns at all, there would be less death, but not
less crime. Because guns make it easy to kill---and human nature is human nature.

Any argument against personal weapons is inane as long as we humans
possess a stockpile of nuclear bombs capable of destroying every living
animal on the face of the earth....



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by vonclod
 


500 children a year die at the end of a legally obtained firearm?

Can you please link your source for this?





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum