I'll start the gun control debate

[Tempra]

So they should call 911, but they should then deal with the intruder themselves? I don't understand.

What is not to understand? People respond in different ways. Some will run out of the house. Some will grab the gun and confront the intruder. Some will lock themselves in the bathroom. All responses have their pros and cons. Regardless of which option is chosen, the cops need to be called, at the very least to file a report.

Should we rely on laws at all to keep us safe? How about we go back to a complete state of anarchy wherein everyone is completely responsible for their own safety and we abandon the concept of a social contract altogether?

Aren't states like Somalia the epitome of this, really? There people are free to have any kind of weapon they want. When you arrive at the airport they ask you what caliber your weapon is, after all. So why aren't people really safe there?

you aren't serious.

And pardon me for being ever so slightly suspicious of that article you're quoting. It seems like it might be a tiny bit biased in its reporting. I mean, perhaps not to the extent of the advertising of the makers of the Backup, but still pretty bad. That article oozes bias in a way that makes it almost painful to read. It's perhaps not quite like reading The Jungle, but it's not far off.

Attack the data. I'm sorry you dislike his writing style.

As I asked Shryke, what evidence do you base your position off of? It is very easy to sit here and attack someone's evidence as "biased" or a "random book." At least give me the same courtesy to dismiss your evidence without much thought.

[TerraPrime]

And what happened shortly after strict gun-laws were put into place?

Hitler of course rampaged your country-side and abducted people from their homes with general ease.

Hitler already? Can't say I'm surprised.

Ever heard of the internment of Japanese Americans, or the Trail of Tears? Also, has Australia started its ghetto yet?

[turinturambar]

I wouldn't place to much confidence on that article the only real comparison it uses is that of "very serious offenses" which as I understand it the statistics for are compiled in different manners between countries so isn't a reasonable comparison.

A quick search for the rates of firearm related deaths shows that the US has a far higher rate than the UK and I'm certainly happy with the laws as they are in the UK. The last time the laws were changed in the UK was after the Dunblane shootings and I can't remember any similar incidents since then in the UK while there have been a number in the US.

Yes, but infant fatality rates and longevity are compiled in different manners in the US than European(and Canada) countries, but everybody on this board seems to take them as THE TRUTH.

Anyways, 13% and 52% seems to be a huge disparity and it's highly unlikely that any differing of statistics compilation can make up that much of a difference.

Anyways, it seems you're happy with the gun laws, but have overall violent crimes gone down since then? Were you on an upward trend only to find yourself on a downward trend after the passing of these laws? Give me some evidence at the least. Also, you seem to think that gun-laws stopped these shootings, and maybe they did, but how many of these similar massacres did you have prior to Dunblane and the one that happened shortly before it? Was there a trend prior to the passing of the laws which stopped afterward? Or were those massacres an anomaly in the first place?

[turinturambar]

Hitler already? Can't say I'm surprised.

Ever heard of the internment of Japanese Americans, or the Trail of Tears? Also, has Australia started its ghetto yet?

Yes I've heard of those things. Where have I ever said that bad shit doesn't happen in America? BTW, Trail of Tears is a pretty bad example. Perhaps if they were well armed they could have defended their land. Instead it was a vastly superior force(in terms of population) with guns overtaking a smaller population with little to no guns.

Internment of Japanese, is definitely a bad situation, though again not comparable to the holocaust.

[Elrostar]

It creates a slippery slope though. If you're all for taking away the rights of the people in the guise of "keeping them safe", then why isn't it ok to spy on people suspected of being terrorists, or other criminals? If there is a bomb about to go off in a major city, is it ok to torture suspected terrorists if the torture is more likely to give us the necessary info to prevent this action? Is it ok to eavesdrop or to profile certain people if it results in lower crime and homicide rates?

I'm sorry, but it's never ok to take away the rights of innocent citizens just because we claim we want to keep them safe. I had parents for 18 years, I don't need anybody else to watch after me. I'll live my life and take my chances.

Anyways, I found this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm

I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it was an interesting read.

That 'article' is essentially stating the case made by American pro-gun people. It's interesting, but that doesn't make it right.

It's full of logical fallacies. Why would falling crime in the last six years have anything to do with increased gun ownership in the US? I fail to understand that correlation. I didn't even see a statement to the effect that in areas where there's falling crime rates, there's higher levels of gun ownership.

Crime rates, particularly of violent crime, are still much higher in the US than they are in Britain. And our murder rates are truly outrageous. So for someone in the US to be saying that you can make Britain safer by making it more like the US is interesting, provocative, but hardly convincing.

Essentially, the argument is extremely weak.

[TerraPrime]

Yes I've heard of those things. Where have I ever said that bad shit doesn't happen in America? BTW, Trail of Tears is a pretty bad example. Perhaps if they were well armed they could have defended their land. Instead it was a vastly superior force(in terms of population) with guns overtaking a smaller population with little to no guns.

The point I was trying to make was apparently lost here.

You presented the confiscation of guns by Hitler's regime as a prelude to the ethnic cleansing that followed. It's a bad argument in the context of arguing about gun control, because the confiscation of fire arms is neither necessary nor sufficient to precipitate ethnic cleansing. History from the world around is rich with examples of ethnic cleansing being enforced against people who do/did have fire arms. What you did in invoking Hitler is nothing more than an attempt to associate people's abhorrence over the holocaust with the confiscation of fire arms. It's a cheap trick, and it's utter bullshit.

Internment of Japanese, is definitely a bad situation, though again not comparable to the holocaust.

Right. Because Hitler's policy to confiscate guns from Jews is directly comparable to the types of gun controls that are being considered for the current U.S. of A.

[ljkeane]

Anyways, 13% and 52% seems to be a huge disparity and it's highly unlikely that any differing of statistics compilation can make up that much of a difference.

Anyways, it seems you're happy with the gun laws, but have overall violent crimes gone down since then? Were you on an upward trend only to find yourself on a downward trend after the passing of these laws?

Well the rate of burglary has gone down since then, determining what the direct effect of gun control is with certainty would be difficult as obviously many factors contribute but clearly the UK has a far lower rate of gun related deaths and generally a far lower murder rate than the US. Obviously violent crime can occur without firearms but when it does involve guns the consequences are often far more serious.

Regarding massacres with guns, I can think of at least one in the UK before Dunblane but since enforcing stricter gun controls there have been none at all, on the other hand I can think of several in the US in the same time period and I'm sure others have occurred that I'm not aware of.

[Adz of CCAA]

And what happened shortly after strict gun-laws were put into place?

Hitler of course rampaged your country-side and abducted people from their homes with general ease.

I did'nt say that everything is perfect!

And they sure changed the laws after WW2!

[turinturambar]

Crime rates, particularly of violent crime, are still much higher in the US than they are in Britain. And our murder rates are truly outrageous. So for someone in the US to be saying that you can make Britain safer by making it more like the US is interesting, provocative, but hardly convincing.

Actually, no. There are many reasons for violent crime. Even non-gun crime is much higher in the US. There are factors for that that have nothing to do with gun-control, but that would be a whole different thread.

But it does state that trends in the US(little gun control) were going down, while they're going up in England(or were at the time of this article), which has high gun control. This would seem to suggest that gun-control has little to do with violent crimes.

[Watcher]

And what happened shortly after strict gun-laws were put into place?

Hitler of course rampaged your country-side and abducted people from their homes with general ease.

This isn't true and I wish people would stop using it. From the same web-site Tempra used up-thread:

The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

[turinturambar]

The point I was trying to make was apparently lost here.

You presented the confiscation of guns by Hitler's regime as a prelude to the ethnic cleansing that followed. It's a bad argument in the context of arguing about gun control, because the confiscation of fire arms is neither necessary nor sufficient to precipitate ethnic cleansing. History from the world around is rich with examples of ethnic cleansing being enforced against people who do/did have fire arms. What you did in invoking Hitler is nothing more than an attempt to associate people's abhorrence over the holocaust with the confiscation of fire arms. It's a cheap trick, and it's utter bullshit.

Not that it's a prelude, just that it makes it easier. It would have been much more difficult had the jews been able to defend themselves. And personally, I'd rather die with a gun in my hand defending myself than let somebody haul me off. It's not a secret that the ruling regime passed strict gun-laws for the very purpose of easing their control over the population.

[ljkeane]

Not that it's a prelude, just that it makes it easier. It would have been much more difficult had the jews been able to defend themselves. And personally, I'd rather die with a gun in my hand defending myself than let somebody haul me off. It's not a secret that the ruling regime passed strict gun-laws for the very purpose of easing their control over the population.

Or you could make the argument that looser gun controls allowed Hitler to essentially recruit a private army which meant he could pressure the establishment into allowing him into the government to prevent a civil war.

[turinturambar]

Regarding massacres with guns, I can think of at least one in the UK before Dunblane but since enforcing stricter gun controls there have been none at all, on the other hand I can think of several in the US in the same time period and I'm sure others have occurred that I'm not aware of.

The one before Dublane was just a few weeks before. Dunblane was more than likely a copy-cat crime. If you're going to tell me there was one before Dunblane, it would be useful to know how long before. It would be one thing if they were happening every 2 or 3 years, then suddenly stopped. But if there was just one, then it would seem they are a pretty rare occurrance to begin with and proving that gun-control had anything to do with preventing future situations would be difficult to do.

[TerraPrime]

Not that it's a prelude, just that it makes it easier. It would have been much more difficult had the jews been able to defend themselves. And personally, I'd rather die with a gun in my hand defending myself than let somebody haul me off. It's not a secret that the ruling regime passed strict gun-laws for the very purpose of easing their control over the population.

This argument is vacuous, owing to the insurmountable gap in fire power between what the U.S. armed forces currently own and what can reasonably be allowed for individual private citizens. Unless you're going to support the ownership of tactical weapons by private individuals, your guns will stand little to no chance against the overwhelming superiority in fire power that the government possesses. Sort of like, you know, how the indigenous peoples of North America were ethnically cleansed out of their land by European settlers/colonists.

But worry not. Your preference to die firing a gun is well enshrined by the U.S. Constitution, and I hope you're okay about that, because that right of yours is part of the reason why 4 women doing aerobics class just died.

[turinturambar]

Or you could make the argument that looser gun controls allowed Hitler to essentially recruit a private army which meant he could pressure the establishment into allowing him into the government to prevent a civil war.

You can argue that a lot of different ways. You can also argue that if Hitler faced opposition or any prospects of civil war, it would have been very difficult to put his eye elsewhere and start conquering Europe. It's much more difficult to conquer abroad when you've got bands of guerrillas in your backyard. It could have also given other countries enough time to prepare. All situations of course are pure hypothetical.

[ljkeane]

The one before Dublane was just a few weeks before. Dunblane was more than likely a copy-cat crime. If you're going to tell me there was one before Dunblane, it would be useful to know how long before. It would be one thing if they were happening every 2 or 3 years, then suddenly stopped. But if there was just one, then it would seem they are a pretty rare occurrance to begin with and proving that gun-control had anything to do with preventing future situations would be difficult to do.

I'm not sure which massacre you're refering to but the one I was thinking of happened in the late 80's (I can't remember where it happened) so that's at least two cases before Dunblane and none after.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

You all are doing well, but really, this thread is nothing without EHK. Sigh. I can't believe I missed 5 pages of gun control. A few points:

1. Comparing the rate of murder in the US to that in the UK in non-applicable. The US rate has always, consistently been 2-3 times higher, even when both countries had unrestricted access to guns. The Czech Republic has similar gun laws to the US, and a much lower murder and violent crime rate. Mexico has similar laws to the UK and has one of the highest in the world. Americans just like to kill each other, sorry to let you know.

2. Psychological testing for guns is a stupid idea. Who will do the testing? What specific conditions will be a disqualifer? What specific conditions can be trusted to be accurately diagnosed by 100% of psychiatrists 100% of the time?

3. Only a couple people in the thread have put forth what kind of gun control they'd actually like to see, and it has usually been of the type that the US already has in place. Shryke, in particular is vehement on this subject, and states that he does not call for the ban of all guns, but has not stated what restrictions should be in place.

[一方通行]

well, the site i wanted to link too appears to have a mild case of unpaid server bills but i did fing something similar to it. here are two maps correlating murder rates by state with each states brady score and each states poverty level.

pretty much,

poverty=more murder

guns=/=more murder.

[Mackaxx]

pretty much,

poverty=more murder

guns=/=more murder.

Thats all fine, but it'd actually be far more useful and interesting to see if Poverty + Guns = More Murder whilst Poverty - Guns = less murder?

[Tempra]

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there was a slight drop in the percent of murders committed with a firearm between 2001 and 2007 (16.0% and 13.4%, respectively). However, the percentage was highest in 2006 (16.3%) and remains higher than the low of 8.9% in 2005. There is no difference in the use of a firearm in robbery: Guns were used in 6.4% of all robberies in both 2001 and 2007.

In 2002–five years after enacting its gun ban–the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime: “The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued its declining trend since 1969.â€

Even the head of Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, acknowledged that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards. I don't think anyone really understands why. A lot of people assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific, convincing evidence

…

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault–Australia’s equivalent term for rape–increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2%. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8%: rape dropped 19.2%; robbery decreased 33.2%; aggravated assault dropped 32.2%. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women...

http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-...despite-gun-ban

But Hey, maybe it will be different here. We are America, right? Can I get a "Fuck Yeah!"?