NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just looking up some information on German gun control laws, and I stumbled across this dated but decent article (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Savelsberg1.html). I just breezed through it, but found this interesting part:

Let me give you a few numbers. For example, the number of violent crimes, [p.260] involving the use of guns declined from almost 13,000 in 1971 to about 4,000 in 1990, a reduction by two-thirds. [1] More specifically, the number of homicides committed with a gun declined from 644 in 1970, again by almost two-thirds, to 224 in 1990.....

One might, of course, suspect that this decline in gun violence may just be a consequence of a declining inclination of Germans to commit violent crimes altogether during the 1970s and 1980s. That is not the case. The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level.

The article makes a compelling argument that strong gun control stems violent gun crimes (it does seem like common sense, right) and sticks to empirical evidence rather than making an assertion on whether gun control should be used.

So, while providing evidence that gun control does limit gun violence, it also provides evidence that people will find other ways to commit violence.



So the questions raised are:

Is this a victory for gun control or not?

Is stopping gun violence the purpose of gun control, or stopping violence in general?

If people are only going to find other ways to commit violent crime, is it still worth highly restrictive gun control?



I realize this compares Germany and America, but if you want to further discuss Germany v. America, create your own thread.

Oh no! Another gun control thread!
*runs screaming in the other direction*

Hopefully this one adds a little diverse discussion to the debate.

Well, obviously, if you tighten controls on guns, gun violence will go down. But if violent crime rates continue to rise, it ends up being rather pointless.

Nothing makes violence with guns any worse than violence without guns.

Restrictive gun control laws are worthless unless they actually decrease violent crime. If they do not, then they are merely unjust government intrusions upon liberty.

Soheran's right, and says all that really needs to be said in this thread. Though it'd be anticlimactic, you could easily put "the end" right here. The End.

I was just looking up some information on German gun control laws, and I stumbled across this dated but decent article (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Savelsberg1.html). I just breezed through it, but found this interesting part:

The article makes a compelling argument that strong gun control stems violent gun crimes (it does seem like common sense, right) and sticks to empirical evidence rather than making an assertion on whether gun control should be used.

So, while providing evidence that gun control does limit gun violence, it also provides evidence that people will find other ways to commit violence.

So the questions raised are:

Is this a victory for gun control or not?

Is stopping gun violence the purpose of gun control, or stopping violence in general?

If people are only going to find other ways to commit violent crime, is it still worth highly restrictive gun control?

I realize this compares Germany and America, but if you want to further discuss Germany v. America, create your own thread.You didn't read the whole article did you?

From the same article:

During the past five years, Germany experienced a rather rapid increase in the availability of guns. It was partly a result of demoralized Soviet troops in the eastern part of the country selling their weapons to the German population, partly to the underground market.

It is interesting to observe that during exactly this period of increased gun availability, violent crime involving guns increased considerably from 4,000 cases in 1990 to 7,700 cases in 1993; homicides involving guns increased by fifty percent, from 224 cases in 1990 to 314 cases in 1993. [5] So, the higher the availability of guns, the more use of guns appears in violent crime.

I can, you can draw my/your own conclusions? :D

I suppose the question is whether a violent crime committed with a gun is likely to do more damage than a violent crime committed without a gun.

It varies on a case-by-case basis of course, but I would suspect it is easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife, or your hands.

I love guns as well as warfare ... but I do believe in this world they must be restricted.

I suppose the question is whether a violent crime committed with a gun is likely to do more damage than a violent crime committed without a gun.

It varies on a case-by-case basis of course, but I would suspect it is easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife, or your hands.

True. I looked for statistics regarding non-gun related homicides in the article, but couldn't find them.

It would be interesting to see some.

Whether violent crimes "with guns" goes up makes little difference. The pertinent question is, does tight gun control have an effect on reducing overall violent crime, regardless of whether or not firearms are used? According to our data in this artice, apparently not.

Whether violent crimes "with guns" goes up makes little difference. The pertinent question is, does tight gun control have an effect on reducing overall violent crime, regardless of whether or not firearms are used? According to our data in this artice, apparently not.
Why would it? Why would you even suppose it would?

Gun control is exactly that. It's a measure to control the amount and ownership of the guns in the country. It's not brainwashing.

It would be interesting to see some.
I struck gold. :D

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

Why would it? Why would you even suppose it would?

Gun control is exactly that. It's a measure to control the amount and ownership of the guns in the country. It's not brainwashing.

What's the point, then?

Leaving aside the legitimate point about lethality you raised earlier, does it matter whether someone is murdered with a knife, with a handgun, or with an assault rifle?

If all gun control is going to do is reduce a certain category of violent crime, and not actually tackle the problem itself, why bother?

You didn't read the whole article did you?

From the same article:

During the past five years, Germany experienced a rather rapid increase in the availability of guns. It was partly a result of demoralized Soviet troops in the eastern part of the country selling their weapons to the German population, partly to the underground market.

It is interesting to observe that during exactly this period of increased gun availability, violent crime involving guns increased considerably from 4,000 cases in 1990 to 7,700 cases in 1993; homicides involving guns increased by fifty percent, from 224 cases in 1990 to 314 cases in 1993. [5] So, the higher the availability of guns, the more use of guns appears in violent crime.

I can, you can draw my/your own conclusions? :D

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

I didn't suppose it would; I was just responding to CanuckHeaven.

(edit) Right--what Vittos said. That's all.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
You only presented one half of the article. The second half clearly refutes the first half.

Leaving aside the legitimate point about lethality you raised earlier, does it matter whether someone is murdered with a knife, with a handgun, or with an assault rifle?
I think that is a very legitimate reason indeed.

Other than that, it certainly helps to prevent such a strange gun-cult as you find with some people in the US. They do have a strange attraction, those guns. But as I said, the main concern would be, I suppose, that instead of people getting killed, they might only get injured.

You only presented one half of the article. The second half clearly refutes the first half.

The part I quoted stated that the overall violent crime rate doubled, even as gun availability and gun violence dropped significantly.

How does your quote refute that?

I think that is a very legitimate reason indeed.

Other than that, it certainly helps to prevent such a strange gun-cult as you find with some people in the US. They do have a strange attraction, those guns. But as I said, the main concern would be, I suppose, that instead of people getting killed, they might only get injured.

Concerning that, the article you posted only dealt with homicide and suicide. It seems to me that gun availability would have a much more significant effect on other violent crimes than murder.

It is much more difficult to rob a convenience store with a bat or a knife than with a gun.

I struck gold. :D

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

I don't see any real correlation there between number of homicides and percentage of gun ownership. The US and Northern Ireland mess things up, but they cancel each other out, more or less.

I think that is a very legitimate reason indeed.

It is. Only from the statistics you posted, I don't think it holds up.

Other than that, it certainly helps to prevent such a strange gun-cult as you find with some people in the US. They do have a strange attraction, those guns.

True. They are an annoying bunch. But in the same vein we'd have to ban cars, too, and I don't think our public transportation system is ready for that.

Concerning that, the article you posted only dealt with homicide and suicide. It seems to me that gun availability would have a much more significant effect on other violent crimes than murder.

It is much more difficult to rob a convenience store with a bat or a knife than with a gun.

If the patterns cited in the article you posted hold up consistently, it doesn't work to prevent general violent crimes, either.

Well, obviously, if you tighten controls on guns, gun violence will go down. But if violent crime rates continue to rise, it ends up being rather pointless.

Nothing makes violence with guns any worse than violence without guns.

Restrictive gun control laws are worthless unless they actually decrease violent crime. If they do not, then they are merely unjust government intrusions upon liberty.Meh, Violence doesn't always equal death. It's still a no brainer that it's tougher to kill someone without a gun. All the rhetoric about 'if guns are outlawed...' doesn't change the fact that the outlaws have guns now, making guns less attainable will reduce gun crime period.


All the gun fanatics really care about is the ability to shoot back. The likelyhood of such an opportunity ever happening is slim but it's a macho pride thing.

I personally think a handgun ban would be sufficient. Let the gun nuts have their long guns to help them feel 'safe'. It's hard to jack a car with a rifle.

Well, obviously, if you tighten controls on guns, gun violence will go down. But if violent crime rates continue to rise, it ends up being rather pointless.

Nothing makes violence with guns any worse than violence without guns.

Restrictive gun control laws are worthless unless they actually decrease violent crime. If they do not, then they are merely unjust government intrusions upon liberty.

1. They cannot be said to be unjust government intrusions on "liberty" merely the American conception of Liberty. I have heard several Americans clinging to their guns on the argument that in Germany the Nazis took away German guns just before Hitler came to power. They forget that in Britain we have had strict gun laws for a very long time, and have had no problem with liberty. The right to bear arms is not a unviersal human right

2. The differnce between vilonece with guns and without guns is that vilonece without guns is that guns are far more powerful and more indiscriminate. While knives and other hand weapons are terrible things too, it is much rarer for innocent bystanders to be victims of knife fight than it is for them to be injured in gunfire exchange.

I was just looking up some information on German gun control laws, and I stumbled across this dated but decent article (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Savelsberg1.html). I just breezed through it, but found this interesting part:



The article makes a compelling argument that strong gun control stems violent gun crimes (it does seem like common sense, right) and sticks to empirical evidence rather than making an assertion on whether gun control should be used.

So, while providing evidence that gun control does limit gun violence, it also provides evidence that people will find other ways to commit violence.



So the questions raised are:

Is this a victory for gun control or not?

Is stopping gun violence the purpose of gun control, or stopping violence in general?

If people are only going to find other ways to commit violent crime, is it still worth highly restrictive gun control?



I realize this compares Germany and America, but if you want to further discuss Germany v. America, create your own thread.

I think the only way to answer this question iwould be to compare the number of dead victims. "Violent crimes" can be anything from assault to murder. The biggest issue I personally have with guns is that they make it far too easy to kill someone. You don't have to physically attack the person, you don't even have to get anywhere close to him/her. There are a good many mental and psychological barriers to killing someone that are simply removed by using a gun (not all of them, of course not, but too many for my taste)

So, if the number of dead victims of violent crimes remained the same of these years, I would stand corrected. But I suspect that it actually declined, and that the number of people who got hurt rather than killed increased.

I struck gold. :D

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

That's just static numbers... it would be interesting to se the development over the timespan quoted in the original article...

So the questions raised are:

Is this a victory for gun control or not?I'd say they cancel each other out, it's neither a victory nor a loss.

Is stopping gun violence the purpose of gun control, or stopping violence in general?I should think it would be stopping violence in general. There is a certain logic that gun control reduces violence, and I'm sure it does...but I don't know if it's any significant amount.

If people are only going to find other ways to commit violent crime, is it still worth highly restrictive gun control?It could be, but in that case it probably isn't.

Nothing makes violence with guns any worse than violence without guns.

Restrictive gun control laws are worthless unless they actually decrease violent crime. If they do not, then they are merely unjust government intrusions upon liberty.

first of all, yes it makes a diference that you can kill more than ten persons in a minute with a gun, but not with an axe, for example.

Liberty is a word that is beloved in the USA to talk about weapons, but for me is one of the biggest threads to the liberty itself.

Of course, it's not the answer to human violence, but we have no capital answer but just little answers to that problem.

It's hard to jack a car with a rifle.

Really? What if you fire first then motion for the guy to get out? Then use the gun as a club.

first of all, yes it makes a diference that you can kill more than ten persons in a minute with a gun, but not with an axe, for example.

Liberty is a word that is beloved in the USA to talk about weapons, but for me is one of the biggest threads to the liberty itself.

Of course, it's not the answer to human violence, but we have no capital answer but just little answers to that problem.

Theres nothing you can't accomplish with a gun that you can't accomplish with an axe and the element of surprise :)

And you can definitely kill 10 people in a minuite with an axe.
Not that I know first hand........

I mean seriously, have you ever held an axe? It does way more damage than a handgun (well that depends on the bullet, but it does more than a 22). Most bullets will be stopped by a few inches of wood, I can go over a foot of wood penetration with an axe. Mind you theres the range on a gun, but thats more signifigant on rifles, and then in an environment where range matters, most cases of violence are indoors in close quarters.

Theres nothing you can't accomplish with a gun that you can't accomplish with an axe and the element of surprise.

I agree. I recall well all the news stories about people hiding on distant buildings and brutally axe-murdering passers-by in the street below, and subsequently making their getaway before anyone even knew where they were. Why, one US president was killed by an axeman while in a parade, and people have believed ever since that there may have been up to three axe-wielding maniacs present. Of course, the element of surprise stopped any of the bystanders seeing them, so only one was ever identified, and there's a lot of debate over whether he could even have done the job, considering the type of axe and his positioning.

...

No, wait...

I mean seriously, have you ever held an axe? It does way more damage than a handgun (well that depends on the bullet, but it does more than a 22). Most bullets will be stopped by a few inches of wood, I can go over a foot of wood penetration with an axe. Mind you theres the range on a gun, but thats more signifigant on rifles, and then in an environment where range matters, most cases of violence are indoors in close quarters.

Signifent diffrence. If you wield an axe in combat with someone else wielding an axe, or any other melle non-firearm weapon, the only casulties are most likely to be you or the other person. However in a gun fight, many many other people are at risk.

Well, all the statistics are interesting.

I support gun control, not an absolute ban. But making it harder to get firearms legally is almost pointless unless something more is done to stop people importing illegal firearms by the containerload.

Personally I think the UK has a nice balance. Although giving the police freedom to stop the aforementioned illegal shipments rather than going for "cheap statistics" by arresting motorists might be an idea....

Signifent diffrence. If you wield an axe in combat with someone else wielding an axe, or any other melle non-firearm weapon, the only casulties are most likely to be you or the other person. However in a gun fight, many many other people are at risk.

See, your argument about other people at risk comes from not having gun control. Gun control means hitting what you aim at. :D

Honestly though, a gun ban in the US wouldn't reduce crime. The reason is, the criminals would be the only ones armed.

Well, obviously, if you tighten controls on guns, gun violence will go down. But if violent crime rates continue to rise, it ends up being rather pointless.
It is incredible pointful. The point of governance isn't to get things done, then you run the risk of fixing things and putting yourself out of a job, the point is to move numbers around and get reelected.

It is incredible pointful. The point of governance isn't to get things done, then you run the risk of fixing things and putting yourself out of a job, the point is to move numbers around and get reelected.

Indeed. There is no way to arrange or re-arrange law so that people who want to do violent and asshole-ish things will not be able to do so. The whole argument is smoke and mirrors, and the politicians are the ones doing all the puffing and preening.

Well, obviously, if you tighten controls on guns, gun violence will go down. But if violent crime rates continue to rise, it ends up being rather pointless.

Nothing makes violence with guns any worse than violence without guns.

Restrictive gun control laws are worthless unless they actually decrease violent crime. If they do not, then they are merely unjust government intrusions upon liberty.

The End.

But you knew that.

Good thread anyway VO. :p

I agree. I recall well all the news stories about people hiding on distant buildings and brutally axe-murdering passers-by in the street below, and subsequently making their getaway before anyone even knew where they were. Why, one US president was killed by an axeman while in a parade, and people have believed ever since that there may have been up to three axe-wielding maniacs present. Of course, the element of surprise stopped any of the bystanders seeing them, so only one was ever identified, and there's a lot of debate over whether he could even have done the job, considering the type of axe and his positioning.

...

No, wait...

That's OK. I have a few hundered yards range with a bow... :eek:

The part I quoted stated that the overall violent crime rate doubled, even as gun availability and gun violence dropped significantly.

How does your quote refute that?
The other part of the article that you didn't quote stated clearly that in later years (1990 to 1993), gun availability increased, violent crimes using guns almost doubled, and homicides using guns increased 50%.

That kinda refutes your opening position.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10478851&postcount=6

That's OK. I have a few hundered yards range with a bow... :eek:

"Damnéd archers! No concept of honour!"

Anyone up to writing a tongue-in-cheek medieval story about bow control?

I love guns as well as warfare ... but I do believe in this world they must be restricted.

...then make sure you take them away from criminals too...

...then make sure you take them away from criminals too...

Because as we all know, all criminals are so from birth. No one would give up their gun and then /later/ desire to shoot someone. Nope. If you're going to shoot someone, you know it your entire life.

You didn't read the whole article did you?

From the same article:

During the past five years, Germany experienced a rather rapid increase in the availability of guns. It was partly a result of demoralized Soviet troops in the eastern part of the country selling their weapons to the German population, partly to the underground market.

It is interesting to observe that during exactly this period of increased gun availability, violent crime involving guns increased considerably from 4,000 cases in 1990 to 7,700 cases in 1993; homicides involving guns increased by fifty percent, from 224 cases in 1990 to 314 cases in 1993. [5] So, the higher the availability of guns, the more use of guns appears in violent crime.[/i]

I can, you can draw my/your own conclusions?

Now highlighting a different point, the conclusion can be reached that selling guns to criminals increases crimes used w/ guns.

The fact that the US's gun crime rate has decreased 2/3's over little more than a decade along w/ the liberalization of firearm laws and an increase in ownership refutes his conclusion of causality. :eek:

You didn't read the whole article did you?

From the same article:

During the past five years, Germany experienced a rather rapid increase in the availability of guns. It was partly a result of demoralized Soviet troops in the eastern part of the country selling their weapons to the German population, partly to the underground market.

It is interesting to observe that during exactly this period of increased gun availability, violent crime involving guns increased considerably from 4,000 cases in 1990 to 7,700 cases in 1993; homicides involving guns increased by fifty percent, from 224 cases in 1990 to 314 cases in 1993. [5] So, the higher the availability of guns, the more use of guns appears in violent crime.

I can, you can draw my/your own conclusions? :D

You mean like the fact that because guns are oulawed the only people using them are criminals and that the common person has no reasonable means of defense against someone wielding a gun? Why yes, I do draw that conclusion. As well from Canada's registry debacle and the general failure of the War on Drugs in the US I draw the conclusion that attempting to eradicate an object that is present an extremely unfeasible thing to do unless one lives in either a communist, fascist, or otherwise totalitarian country. Ergo, it makes no fucking sense at all if guns are already availible to the criminals to restrict their usage from the LACs.

See, your argument about other people at risk comes from not having gun control. Gun control means hitting what you aim at. :D


Very funny :rolleyes:

But in all seriousness, if you cant see the diffrence between melle and high velocity projectile weapons, you are very blind


Honestly though, a gun ban in the US wouldn't reduce crime. The reason is, the criminals would be the only ones armed.

That arguemnent is not specific to the US. Its specific to any country. And hey, guess what! The UK gun crime rate is 14 times lower than the US. May have something to do with our strict gun control laws. The old "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" arguement oversimplifiys a very serious problem.

Very funny :rolleyes:

But in all seriousness, if you cant see the diffrence between melle and high velocity projectile weapons, you are very blind



That arguemnent is not specific to the US. Its specific to any country. And hey, guess what! The UK gun crime rate is 14 times lower than the US. May have something to do with our strict gun control laws. The old "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" arguement oversimplifiys a very serious problem.

It always has been lower. No causality there. Yet the UKs' is rising while the US's is dropping. and UK violent crime is higher than the US. Still no causality.

I should think it would be stopping violence in general. There is a certain logic that gun control reduces violence, and I'm sure it does...but I don't know if it's any significant amount.

Just because I can, I'd like to posit that gun control has no effect on violent crime in general. Instead, various other factors have everything to do with violence. Various socio-economic factors of course come to mind, but other things include perhaps the prevalence of alcohol abuse, the presence of drug use, the natural aggression of a culture, the individualistic/communalistic nature of a culture and the rest, and that guns have nothing to do with overall violence in general. After all, people have been killing each other since the days when the most advance military hardware available was a branch with pointy rocks stuck in it.

Just because I can, I'd like to posit that gun control has no effect on violent crime in general. Instead, various other factors have everything to do with violence. Various socio-economic factors of course come to mind, but other things include perhaps the prevalence of alcohol abuse, the presence of drug use, the natural aggression of a culture, the individualistic/communalistic nature of a culture and the rest, and that guns have nothing to do with overall violence in general. After all, people have been killing each other since the days when the most advance military hardware available was a branch with pointy rocks stuck in it.

It's interesting to note that, in the UK, 50% of violent crime is associated w/ alcohol yet you never hear cries for it being banned or more restricted, you instead hear calls for plastic cups instead of glass mugs.

UK gun crime rate is 14 times lower than the US. May have something to do with our strict gun control laws. The old "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" arguement oversimplifiys a very serious problem.Post hoc ergo propter hoc... :rolleyes:

I agree. I recall well all the news stories about people hiding on distant buildings and brutally axe-murdering passers-by in the street below, and subsequently making their getaway before anyone even knew where they were. Why, one US president was killed by an axeman while in a parade, and people have believed ever since that there may have been up to three axe-wielding maniacs present. Of course, the element of surprise stopped any of the bystanders seeing them, so only one was ever identified, and there's a lot of debate over whether he could even have done the job, considering the type of axe and his positioning.

...

No, wait...

lol (pretty funny),that is not most cases, most of the time the victim doesn't have Secret Service making melee imposible. Duh, guns are better at range, I'm just saying most violence in peacetime is not done at range. People get knifed all the time with the perpetrator getting away (the axe is out of fashion). However, I did specify the element of surprise, if Jacky Kennedy had had an axe in the car sitting next to him.....

Signifent diffrence. If you wield an axe in combat with someone else wielding an axe, or any other melle non-firearm weapon, the only casulties are most likely to be you or the other person. However in a gun fight, many many other people are at risk.

Those other people should get axes.

That's OK. I have a few hundered yards range with a bow... :eek:

yah and just stick an exploding tip on it..... or an airgun with cyanide dipped pellets....

It always has been lower. No causality there. Yet the UKs' is rising while the US's is dropping. and UK violent crime is higher than the US. Still no causality.

It has always been lower because UK gun laws have always been stricter. And the UK's gun crime is going up mainly due to recent increases in smugling. Our vilonet crime may be higher, but yours is generally more deadly, since it more often involves guns.

The other part of the article that you didn't quote stated clearly that in later years (1990 to 1993), gun availability increased, violent crimes using guns almost doubled, and homicides using guns increased 50%.

That kinda refutes your opening position.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10478851&postcount=6

Did violence go up though, or did they just switch to guns?

It's interesting to note that, in the UK, 50% of violent crime is associated w/ alcohol yet you never hear cries for it being banned or more restricted, you instead hear calls for plastic cups instead of glass mugs.

Because surprisngly we have already seen what happens when you prohibit alcohol. And the plastic thing is to do with people being injured from the shards of glass. Which makes sense.

Really? What if you fire first then motion for the guy to get out? Then use the gun as a club.The point is not that it can't be done, it can't be done without being very conspicuous. People walking down the street with a rifle tend to attract attention. Handguns make crime so much easier to commit.

It has always been lower because UK gun laws have always been stricter. And the UK's gun crime is going up mainly due to recent increases in smugling. Our vilonet crime may be higher, but yours is generally more deadly, since it more often involves guns.

Bold = Why Gun prohibition is senseless.

Very funny :rolleyes:

But in all seriousness, if you cant see the diffrence between melle and high velocity projectile weapons, you are very blind



That arguemnent is not specific to the US. Its specific to any country. And hey, guess what! The UK gun crime rate is 14 times lower than the US. May have something to do with our strict gun control laws. The old "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" arguement oversimplifiys a very serious problem.

But its gone up since you banned it! Anyhow, is the rate you base your judgement a per area rate or an account of the total crime? Because last time I checked the UK is 1/3 the size of California.

The point is not that it can't be done, it can't be done without being very conspicuous. People walking down the street with a rifle tend to attract attention. Handguns make crime so much easier to commit.
Knives Don't?

"You think that's a Knife? THIS is a knife!"

Well, obviously, if you tighten controls on guns, gun violence will go down. But if violent crime rates continue to rise, it ends up being rather pointless.

Nothing makes violence with guns any worse than violence without guns.

Restrictive gun control laws are worthless unless they actually decrease violent crime. If they do not, then they are merely unjust government intrusions upon liberty.

Well, yes, violence with guns has a greater propensity to get people killed, it's kinda axiomatic based around the whole "having a lethal weapon" thing. Violence without guns doesn't necessarily have the same propensity.

It has always been lower because UK gun laws have always been stricter. And the UK's gun crime is going up mainly due to recent increases in smugling. Our vilonet crime may be higher, but yours is generally more deadly, since it more often involves guns.

No they haven't always been stricter. They started getting stricter in the teens in fear of communists and anarchists. It was lower then as well.

So bans on civilian ownership of firearms hasn't stopped criminals? Go figure.

You have claimed absolute causality and I have shown it to be false. Try again.

Meh, Violence doesn't always equal death. It's still a no brainer that it's tougher to kill someone without a gun. All the rhetoric about 'if guns are outlawed...' doesn't change the fact that the outlaws have guns now, making guns less attainable will reduce gun crime period.

Have you seen the statistics Neu Leonstein posted? While it is true that making guns less attainable will reduce gun crime, it is not necessarily true that this will result in a reduction in either violent crime rates or homicide rates.

All the gun fanatics really care about is the ability to shoot back. The likelyhood of such an opportunity ever happening is slim but it's a macho pride thing.

There's definitely the "macho pride thing" involved. Personally I find the sentiment disgusting, but people have the right to take value in what they choose.

I personally think a handgun ban would be sufficient. Let the gun nuts have their long guns to help them feel 'safe'. It's hard to jack a car with a rifle.

I have no problem with a handgun ban.

1. They cannot be said to be unjust government intrusions on "liberty" merely the American conception of Liberty. I have heard several Americans clinging to their guns on the argument that in Germany the Nazis took away German guns just before Hitler came to power. They forget that in Britain we have had strict gun laws for a very long time, and have had no problem with liberty. The right to bear arms is not a unviersal human right

I think that as far as restricting any particular behavior, whatever it is, the burden of proof is on the restrictors. Furthermore, I definitely believe the right to self-defense is a fundamental liberty, as is the right to revolt against oppressive governments.

2. The differnce between vilonece with guns and without guns is that vilonece without guns is that guns are far more powerful and more indiscriminate. While knives and other hand weapons are terrible things too, it is much rarer for innocent bystanders to be victims of knife fight than it is for them to be injured in gunfire exchange.

I'm willing to grant this one.

Liberty is a word that is beloved in the USA to talk about weapons, but for me is one of the biggest threads to the liberty itself.

Of course weapons are threats to liberty. They can also be its safeguards, however. I would rather have weapons in the hands of the population than concentrated in a government monopoly.

Because surprisngly we have already seen what happens when you prohibit alcohol. And the plastic thing is to do with people being injured from the shards of glass. Which makes sense.

And now you're being shown what happens when you prohibit firearms.

By your logic: Shards of glass due to an alcohol related incident which wouldn't have happened if there had been no alcohol.

Ok, lets throw away these attempts at the causality of violence for a second. Given the fascist slant of American government and the virtual surveilance state that is the UK, who here really trusts their government to act justly when faced with a defensless constituency?

Ok, lets throw away these attempts at the causality of violence for a second. Given the fascist slant of American government and the virtual surveilance state that is the UK, who here really trusts their government to act justly when faced with a defensless constituency?

The British constituency has been "defenceless" for a good few years. Whilst i am no fan of the current swathe of assaults on our civil liberties, i think you'll have to wait quite a long while for it to go down the road of fascist state.

Besides, it's not the governments you should be worried about, it's the corporations that own them.

Ok, lets throw away these attempts at the causality of violence for a second. Given the fascist slant of American government and the virtual surveilance state that is the UK, who here really trusts their government to act justly when faced with a defensless constituency?

Especially in the US when you have the agencies charged w/ upholding firearm laws targetting women and minorities and attempting to bypass congressional control using private money to fund new "task forces".

All the gun fanatics really care about is the ability to shoot back. The likelyhood of such an opportunity ever happening is slim but it's a macho pride thing.Oh, I don't know. I've had the "opportunity" to stop 3 violent assaults on my person by displaying (not firing) a handgun. I don't think keeping my skull from being bashed with a crowbar really requires "macho-pride".
I personally think a handgun ban would be sufficient. Let the gun nuts have their long guns to help them feel 'safe'. It's hard to jack a car with a rifle.
And then the criminals, if they couldn't access concealable firearms, would just start making their own. Unfortunately, the easiest concealable firearm to make is the open-bolt/blow-back smoothbore submachinegun. Spray & Pray is so much safer than semi-auto aimed fire. :rolleyes:

Bold = Why Gun prohibition is senseless.

Smuggling from other countries. And anyway even with the rise in smuggling our gun crime rate is still massively lower than Amercia's.

Smuggling from other countries.

And you are going to stop rogue nations from manufacturing/exporting firearms how?

BTW: Small change to make your statement a little more correct...

And anyway even with the rise in smuggling our gun crime rate is still massively lower than Amercia's.

There. Now it's even more true.

Read up on Post Hoc fallacy. It might help your posting.

And now you're being shown what happens when you prohibit firearms.

We prohibited firearms in the kind of liberal stance the Americans have on them ages ago. This recent rise in viloent crime has nothing to do with the prohabition of firearms.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]
By your logic: Shards of glass due to an alcohol related incident which wouldn't have happened if there had been no alcohol.

Its more logical to simply confine alcoholic consumption. IE to people homes, bars, clubs and pubs. In the same way we confine guns.

Ok, lets throw away these attempts at the causality of violence for a second. Given the fascist slant of American government and the virtual surveilance state that is the UK, who here really trusts their government to act justly when faced with a defensless constituency?:rolleyes: You don't pay attention do you. Do you really think a bunch of gun nuts have a chance of even slowing down a modern military force. We may not be 'defenseless' right now but it's only a token defense. Even if you match them gun for gun, they have support. Unless you have an APC, tank or artillery piece hiding in your garage you're an idiot if you think owning guns would make a difference.

Every time you see some paramilitary extremist group come to odds with the government who wins? Have you ever seen the guys in black kevlar with letters on the back go away and say "we give up, you guys go ahead and do what you want." No, it always ends with the 'bad' guys in body bags or hand cuffs.

Besides the weapon of choice for defense against a military force and the weapon of choice for criminals are not the same. You want a rifle for one and the other prefers a handgun.

Smuggling from other countries. And anyway even with the rise in smuggling our gun crime rate is still massively lower than Amercia's.

And was even before the greater restrictions on ownership. Smuggling by criminals to criminals.

Repeat ad nauseum

Martin Killias
School of Forensic Science and Criminology
University of Lausanne, Switzerland
John van Kesteren
UNICRI
Torino, Italy
and
Martin Rindlisbacher
School of Forensic Science and Criminology
University of Lausanne, Switzerland


GUNS, VIOLENT CRIME, AND SUICIDE IN 21 COUNTRIES

" Interestingly, no significant correlations with total suicide or homicide rates were found, leaving open the question of possible substitution effects."

Small change to make your statement a little more correct...

There. Now it's even more true.

Read up on Post Hoc fallacy. It might help your posting.

Our gun crime rate may be rising. But compared to America's it is still very very low

And ultimately it isnt about the number of guns. More the attitude to society and the people around them. Both Britain and the US can learn alot from Japanese soceity on that one.

We prohibited firearms in the kind of liberal stance the Americans have on them ages ago. This recent rise in viloent crime has nothing to do with the prohabition of firearms.

You're right. The prohibition did NOTHING to reduce crime which was it's stated purpose. Glad you admit that.



Its more logical to simply confine alcoholic consumption. IE to people homes, bars, clubs and pubs. In the same way we confine guns.

Oh, firearms are much more restricted than that while alcohol is associated w/ more violent crime than firearms ever were.

Our gun crime rate may be rising. But compared to America's it is still very very low

And it has nothing to do w/ private ownership levels


And ultimately it isnt about the number of guns. More the attitude to society and the people around them. Both Britain and the US can learn alot from Japanese soceity on that one.

At least you finally admit it has nothing to do w/ the number of firearms.

The Japanese have a suicide rate triple that of the US yet have almost no firearms and have regular inspections of homes by authorities. Not exactly something I want to emulate.

In terms of the US: A ban on firearms violates the constitution. Control measures do not. When I say 'control measures', all I'm referring to is registering who owns what gun, just so that they can be tracked in the result of a violent crime.

As for the argument regarding the correlation of violent crime to gun violence: I think there is a BIG difference vetween violent crimes and gun violence. Guns are far more effective weapons than improvised weapons or other low-tech weapons. You can't sit on a building and effectively murder dozens of people with knives or rocks. Its a lot easier to have a murderer terrorize the Washington area for weeks with a gun than with anything else (disregarding grenades or something even more destructive).

Speaking of which. If guns shouldn't be controlled, is it okay for grenades, missile launchers and mines to be uncontrollably purchased by civilians, were they offered? If anyone thinks that THAT'S okay, then I have really lost the last of my failing faith in humanity. There HAS to be differentiation between violence and firearm violence.

Smuggling from other countries. And anyway even with the rise in smuggling our gun crime rate is still massively lower than Amercia's.

Of course smugling! What did you think he was implying that Brits are making them in woodshop? His point still stands.

Speaking of which. If guns shouldn't be controlled, is it okay for grenades, missile launchers and mines to be uncontrollably purchased by civilians, were they offered? If anyone thinks that THAT'S okay, then I have really lost the last of my failing faith in humanity. There HAS to be differentiation between violence and firearm violence.

Funny, I'm pro-gun ownership (with some regulation), but anti explosive ordinance, I think its immoral to use weapons where ones target is a mystery, or where there is colateral damage.

This was from another gun control post, but still valid here:

In many ways I can understand why those from other countries who do not have any knowledge about guns aside from watching them blaze away in movies (Do not get me started about the inaccuracy shown in movies about any sort equipement) and sometimes in the evening news when a criminal uses one to commit a violent act. This forms a mindset that guns are bad, period. Unfortunantly, many of these people will never understand the fun of trying to put a very tiny peice of metal through a peice of paper 1,2,3+ football field lengths away. They will never understand the nastalgia of having a rifle used in a war in years past. Just the thrill of being able to handle, work on, and admire something that had a small hand in shaping the world as it is today. To them, that peice of metal and wood represents violence, represents fear, and in some cases represents what exactly is wrong with humanity. Because of this they loathe guns, which in all honesty is absolutely fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with hating something. However, what gets me is these people go on a crusade to ban the thing that they hate. Under the flag of anti-crime, social safety, and just flat phobias of guns they set out to remove all firearms. When someone has spent the amount of cash I have invested in my collection, I will have a very serious issue with this. Especially when the groups have to lie (brady campaign) to get the public on thier side in thier gun bans. Now, regardless of the banner they fly under or any genuine well meaning of these groups there is one thing that is ignored, the rights of the everyday citizen. No one seems concerned about those who keep guns for a hobby or recreational purpose. They by a very far margin outweigh those who use guns for malicious purposes. So, what these gun bans do is punish the lawful gun owners by taking away historical/recreational peices, not including the cash investment a owner expends to buy them. (Guns are by no means cheap) All this for what? You made a vast majority give up thier property for help ease your phobia. Something that may put a slight dent in crime level if any. This is simply unacceptable for any free country to follow through with something like this. What has just happened was like taking cough syrup for a serious flu. It may help releave a annoyance but does nothing to fight a deep seated virus in ourselves and in society. All that has happened is we banished a scapegoat instead of addressing the real problem. This is exactly why I am against any further gun control, I see any further as being punished for crimes that I did not commit while doing little to nothing to reduce crime or punish those who commit these crimes.

Our gun crime rate may be rising. But compared to America's it is still very very lowTry reading my posts. Britian's CRIME rate is, in general, lower than the US's. However, now ALL crime rates in Britian are going up, INCLUDING gun crime, while I believe that the US rate, for ALL crime (on the average), is falling. Gun control had nothing to do with either situation. The only thing that the Gun Control in the UK has done is taken away an avenue of self defense for homeowners.
And ultimately it isnt about the number of guns. More the attitude to society and the people around them. Both Britain and the US can learn alot from Japanese soceity on that one.
You mean become a police state? (You think we have issues with warrantless searches here... :rolleyes: ) Sorry. No thanks.

In NY, Mayor Bloomberg is attacking the NRA and states w/ "less restrictive" firearm laws. He blames the recent shooting death of a NYPD officer on them and the company that made the firearm.

The Facts:

The firearm was stolen in 1999 from FL and was taken to NY (already an illegal act).

The criminal who shot the officer was already wanted in PA w/ a request for extradition should he be caught elsewhere. He was also on probation in NY and had been arrested before the shooting (a violation of his parole) but was released by NY authorities.

Yet the blame is laid on legal firearm ownership.

Go figure.

"Damnéd archers! No concept of honour!"

Anyone up to writing a tongue-in-cheek medieval story about bow control?

Possibly, but not right now; too much work to get done. :(

In terms of the US: A ban on firearms violates the constitution. Control measures do not. When I say 'control measures', all I'm referring to is registering who owns what gun, just so that they can be tracked in the result of a violent crime.

and since the majority of firearms used in crime are illegally possessed and registration has ALWAYS led to confiscation, what would it do for crime?

As for the argument regarding the correlation of violent crime to gun violence: I think there is a BIG difference vetween violent crimes and gun violence. Guns are far more effective weapons than improvised weapons or other low-tech weapons. You can't sit on a building and effectively murder dozens of people with knives or rocks. Its a lot easier to have a murderer terrorize the Washington area for weeks with a gun than with anything else (disregarding grenades or something even more destructive).

The Washinton "sniper" purchased his gun illegally. Had the dealer been following the law, it wouldn't have been able to be purchased.

Speaking of which. If guns shouldn't be controlled, is it okay for grenades, missile launchers and mines to be uncontrollably purchased by civilians, were they offered? If anyone thinks that THAT'S okay, then I have really lost the last of my failing faith in humanity. There HAS to be differentiation between violence and firearm violence.

Now you're comparing arms to ordinance, of which there is a difference.

As far as raising crime rates (violent, and non-gun) you have overlooked a major causality, rising minority populations and leftist social policy create racial angst, guns dont cause crime people do. as long as the left in the U.S. continues to pit minorities against the whites this will be a problem. the real criminals are those who cause these problems, they distract from the corruption that dominates BOTH parties here. It is the governments best intrest to keep the American people divided on issues of race. It insures that we wont realize how crooked these bastards are. As far as smuggled weapons and assault weapons, most of those are squirreled away by the patriots while there is still availability. Most crime is commited with small easily concealed handguns and is commited in mostly in the crowded urban centers by minorities.
Ask your self 2 questions. Do you really think that with greater investment in police operations budgets they want a reduction in crime? NO! they have to justify the billions spent already AND justify MORE funds.
2. And as Most crime is commited by minorities in urban areas wouldnt it make more sense to ban guns in urban areas? or ban minority gun ownership? Or minority gun ownership in urban areas? or ban small concealable handguns? Wheres the sense in enforcing a gun ban on citizenry that ARE NOT commiting crime?
IF WE ARE TO BAN ITEMS FOR PUBLIC SAFTY THEN LETS SELECTIVLY DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS MOST EFFIECIENT AND ADRESSES THE PROBLEM IN THE BEST WAY!
once again we are back to the government creating fear so they can justify their budgets and power.
As far as the guns belonging to me and mine, the government can have them if they wish, Bullets first, then pried from our cold dead fingers.:mp5:

I realize this compares Germany and America, but if you want to further discuss Germany v. America, create your own thread.
How does it compare Germany to America? It only discusses Germany.

I just want to know why so many bastards want to take my guns away. If you do not want to own guns, then by God, don't. I LIKE to hunt and fish, and be outdoorsy. Leave me and my personal arsonal alone, damnit.

Gun control does in fact affect crime rates in a seemingly nonsensical way. Because people have no guns to shoot each other with, it would seem that gun violence goes down, but certain statistics have shown that it actually goes up because people who would kill someone have to go through rather elaborate steps to acquire a weapon. But since the people that do this are crazies anyway, it doesnt matter to them.

Yttiria raises an interesting question on what should be legal for citizens.
All able bodied males in the U.S. are members of the unorganized militia and are subject to mobilization on the authority of the federal government or in some states the state authorities. Some states (like Alaska ) also maintain their own militias and or naval militias. these are independent of federal authority and may NOT be activated by the feds. ( see both the u.s. code of justice, u.s. constitution, and Alaska state constitution).
The puropse of these unorganized and loosly organized militias was two fold.
1.to be a resource provided by the states to the feds in time of emergency.
2.to keep secret the source of men under arms secret FROM the u.s. gov.
we learnd these lessons from the brits who would round up all known militia members during the revolution. If you listen to some of our own government officials today they advocate this very posistion.
You can gauge how oppressive and corrupt a government has become by the amount of fear it displays.

Free men who are well armed are the foundation on which free countries are built.

saying all that, the militia must have access to military weapons, to let such a wide gap in weaponry continue is to invite more gov. control
But lets be real. A reasonable compromise is to allow the people to be armed on par with the police, if the police are allowed automatic weapons then we must keep ours.
we would feel better about not having ours if only the military had them but as long as the police are now equiped similar to the army then the militia will continue to accuire military weapons.;)

Try reading my posts. Britian's CRIME rate is, in general, lower than the US's. However, now ALL crime rates in Britian are going up, INCLUDING gun crime, while I believe that the US rate, for ALL crime (on the average), is falling. Gun control had nothing to do with either situation. The only thing that the Gun Control in the UK has done is taken away an avenue of self defense for homeowners.

As a sidenote: Although the UK has a higher number of total crimes per capita than the US, the US still leads in the number of murders per capita, assaults per capita and rapes per capita according to nationmaster.com.

All the gun fanatics really care about is the ability to shoot back. The likelyhood of such an opportunity ever happening is slim but it's a macho pride thing.

Looks like the odds aren't that slim.


From a 1994 FSU study:

"They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns."

DGU=defensive gun use

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

This is one of many such surveys.

If only 1% of the people saved their lives thats 22000-25000 people per year not taking into account rapes prevented or possesions that were not stolen.

As a sidenote: Although the UK has a higher number of total crimes per capita than the US, the US still leads in the number of murders per capita, assaults per capita and rapes per capita according to nationmaster.com.
Which, in a nation the size and diversity of the US is a silly way to rate things.

For example, there are fewer guns, but more violent crime per capita in most major cities than out in bumfuck where everybody and his inbread cousin has 14 guns.

The rate of gun ownership =/= violent crime rates.

As a sidenote: Although the UK has a higher number of total crimes per capita than the US, the US still leads in the number of murders per capita, assaults per capita and rapes per capita according to nationmaster.com.

The data is four years out of date. I believe assaults has surpassed the US.

Now highlighting a different point, the conclusion can be reached that selling guns to criminals increases crimes used w/ guns.

The fact that the US's gun crime rate has decreased 2/3's over little more than a decade along w/ the liberalization of firearm laws and an increase in ownership refutes his conclusion of causality. :eek:
Probably has a lot to do with the fact that the US prison population has quadruled since 1980?

US notches world's highest incarceration rate (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html)

The new report also informs - but does not settle - one of the toughest debates in American politics: whether high rates of imprisonment are related to a drop in crime rates over the past decade.

The prison population has quadrupled since 1980. Much of that surge is the result of public policy, such as the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing. Nearly 1 in 4 of the inmates in federal and state prisons are there because of drug-related offenses, most of them nonviolent.

A couple of other interesting highlights from the article:

More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

Others say the drop has more to do with factors such as a generally healthy economy in the 1990s, more opportunity for urban youth, or better community policing.

But no one disagrees that prison experience will be a part of the lives of more and more Americans. By 2010, the number of American residents in prison or with prison experience is expected to jump to 7.7 million, or 3.4 percent of all adults, according to the new report.

The data is four years out of date. I believe assaults has surpassed the US.
Believe = / = truth or fact.

Believe = / = truth or fact.

and the point of that post was what, CH? Just general trolling?

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that the US prison population has quadruled since 1980?



So incarcerating criminals reduces crime. Good.

What does that have to do w/ the authors' gun control causality premise?

and the point of that post was what, CH? Just general trolling?
Generally I don't troll. It was a roundabout way of asking you to support your beliefs with some facts.

Very funny :rolleyes:

But in all seriousness, if you cant see the diffrence between melle and high velocity projectile weapons, you are very blind



That arguemnent is not specific to the US. Its specific to any country. And hey, guess what! The UK gun crime rate is 14 times lower than the US. May have something to do with our strict gun control laws. The old "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" arguement oversimplifiys a very serious problem.

yea... and how long will it be till your cops and royal marines are doing the bidding of the BNP of other fascist tards.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have twice the muggings and half the fatalities than half the muggings but twice the fatalities.

Signifent diffrence. If you wield an axe in combat with someone else wielding an axe, or any other melle non-firearm weapon, the only casulties are most likely to be you or the other person. However in a gun fight, many many other people are at risk.
Only if one of you is a cop.

But its gone up since you banned it! Anyhow, is the rate you base your judgement a per area rate or an account of the total crime? Because last time I checked the UK is 1/3 the size of California.
Population based. Amount of crime per 100,000 people generally.

Smuggling from other countries. And anyway even with the rise in smuggling our gun crime rate is still massively lower than Amercia's.
Give it time. The nice thing about guns is that they're pretty damn sturdy.

:rolleyes: You don't pay attention do you. Do you really think a bunch of gun nuts have a chance of even slowing down a modern military force. We may not be 'defenseless' right now but it's only a token defense. Even if you match them gun for gun, they have support. Unless you have an APC, tank or artillery piece hiding in your garage you're an idiot if you think owning guns would make a difference.
Small force, the modern military no problem. Even a quarter of the popualation of a country in active resistance, the population any day of the week, especially if it were to happen in america.

And ultimately it isnt about the number of guns. More the attitude to society and the people around them. Both Britain and the US can learn alot from Japanese soceity on that one.
Because one of the highest suicide rates in the world is something to aspire to.

Speaking of which. If guns shouldn't be controlled, is it okay for grenades, missile launchers and mines to be uncontrollably purchased by civilians, were they offered? If anyone thinks that THAT'S okay, then I have really lost the last of my failing faith in humanity. There HAS to be differentiation between violence and firearm violence.
Grenades no, because really there's no need for them. Mines no. Missle launchers no because in a major revolt situation they could be either stolen or manufactured. Until that time you don't need missle launchers.

The Washinton "sniper" purchased his gun illegally. Had the dealer been following the law, it wouldn't have been able to be purchased.


For that matter his choice of gun shows that he didn't know the first thing about guns. A rifle firing the .223 poodleshooter is not a weapon you use for killing an animal the size of a human. Need a .308 for that.

Grenades no, because really there's no need for them. Mines no. Missle launchers no because in a major revolt situation they could be either stolen or manufactured. Until that time you don't need missle launchers.
Hmmm.

I have both the plans and equipment to build 9mm submachineguns AND heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles. I guess I'll have to do some modifications to add anti-tank to the mix.

The other part of the article that you didn't quote stated clearly that in later years (1990 to 1993), gun availability increased, violent crimes using guns almost doubled, and homicides using guns increased 50%.

That kinda refutes your opening position.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10478851&postcount=6

1. I didn't express an opening position.

2. I did state: "The article makes a compelling argument that strong gun control stems violent gun crimes..."

3. Nothing you have stated answers any of the questions I asked. You merely pointed out that gun control hinders gun violence, which only reiterates what I originally said.


EDIT: It seems that you did take this thread away from the original topic and made it a topic about whether gun control stops gun violence, which has been argued ceaselessly on this forum since I have been here. Well done.

As far as raising crime rates (violent, and non-gun) you have overlooked a major causality, rising minority populations and leftist social policy create racial angst, guns dont cause crime people do. as long as the left in the U.S. continues to pit minorities against the whites this will be a problem.

If you want minorities not to be resentful of racial privilege, then get rid of it.

So the questions raised are:

Is this a victory for gun control or not?
After reading the whole article, yes I do believe it is.

Is stopping gun violence the purpose of gun control, or stopping violence in general?
On part one of the question I say yes, and on part two of the question, I believe that there would be a residual affect on all violence i.e. less overall violence. When I think about mass murders I think of guns, such as postal workers, schools such as Columbine, and long distance killings such as the DC Sniper.

If people are only going to find other ways to commit violent crime, is it still worth highly restrictive gun control?
The most violent crime is murder and in the US, 70% of all murders are committed with firearms.

After reading the whole article, yes I do believe it is.


On part one of the question I say yes, and on part two of the question, I believe that there would be a residual affect on all violence i.e. less overall violence. When I think about mass murders I think of guns, such as postal workers, schools such as Columbine, and long distance killings such as the DC Sniper.




To quote you "Belief =/= facts"

Every example shown so far has shown that gun control has had no effect on overall violence.


When I think about mass murders, I think about gas chambers, suicide bombers, and machetes.

After reading the whole article, yes I do believe it is.


On part one of the question I say yes, and on part two of the question, I believe that there would be a residual affect on all violence i.e. less overall violence. When I think about mass murders I think of guns, ... schools such as Columbine, ....


The most violent crime is murder and in the US, 70% of all murders are committed with firearms.

oh, but think about all the people who made it through highschool without being bullied everyday.....

oh, but think about all the people who made it through highschool without being bullied everyday.....
More appropriately, look at al the people who WERE bullied every day but DIDN'T go shoot up/attempt to blow up their school...

Especially look at all those kids who were in school 30 years ago when there wasn't all this "Gun Free School Zone" crap. Or had rifle clubs in their school. Or lived where people regularly brought guns to school so they could get in a bit of after-school hunting. Or, Or, Or....

Hmmm. Maybe it's not the guns...