NationStates Jolt Archive

canada has a fairly high percentage of gun owners, and a very low murder rate.

Switzerland has a lot of guns and a higher gun-death rate than its European counterparts with fewer guns.

better than Gun control is ammunition control, but with the porus nature of your southern border i think that would be difficult to enforce - it would be like trying to control drugs.
why is Americas murder/gun death rate so high?, i don't know. But i watch Bowling For COlumbine and i wonder, America doesnt make any sense at all. Europe and Austra;lia with tough laws have no-where near the murder rate with guns or otherwise. Canada has a lot of guns, and no where near the murder rate.
America has few gun laws, a lot of guns and a lot of incompetent owners and criminals with ready access to them does not create a good atmopsphere.


The full second amendment to the constitution has been bastardized beyond all meaning by siccessive court judgments surrounding its interpretaion. A lady with a .22 in her purse does not consttitute part of a well maintained militia nessercery to the protection of a free state. i have never seen a definition of "well regulated militia" that accounts for her.


I don't have any easy answers (let alone sollutions), other than returning to a strict construtionist way of reading the second amendment, removing guns from the general population, and leave the Criminals and the Police with the guns. A minimal number of breaking and enterings of domiciles happen with a gun, and the best advice is not to disturb them anyway - avoid confrontation, call the police and claim the insurance.

W

ACtually, BFC has been debunked numerous times as well. Watch "Bowling for Truth.

The "well regulated militia" is dependant on an armed populace, not the other way around.

The police have no accountablilty to protect you. I don't trust someone breaking into my house to "just take things".

So there's no crime in the UK? The police protect you 24/7?

They seem to protect us far better than the US police do, if you need guns to solve your crime problems


So there's no varmints in the country? The Gov't takes care of it all? Really?


Firstly, its vermin.

Secondly, that is not what I said. There are vermin but when there are vermin, we call the government to deal with it and they do.


The classic "need" argument. Shall we let the Gov't decide what we "need"?


No, but we shall let logic. You may feel that you 'need' a gun, but your feeling of need is outweighed by the question of safety. You are still able to satisfy your need at a club.



And that's just silly.

And thats not an argument. Why is it silly that guns do not need to be leathl when you collect them


Of course you just did exactly what I said you would. So predictable.

The Bible verse "What should a main have if he gains the whole world but loses his soul" is a very old verse and a very predictable verse to use in certian situations. But predictablity does not mean invalidity. It is still a valid point to make when it comes to faustisan bargins. In the same way my arguments may be predictable, doesnt make them wrong and it doesnt make you more intellegent for noticing that. So get off you podium and look around. You arnt better than me for prediciting an argument that opposes and beats your own.

You press the trigger, and if you are accurate, the thing in front has been damaged, perhaps fatally.
In 1991, my office was completely destroyed by a bomb. No one was ever apprehended.
How often has your home been attacked? Do you go out regularly to shoot game? What is your preferred method of target shooting? Is it not possible to collect guns and then make them incapable of use?
Why do you need a gun?

Need, need, need. What does your office being bombed have to do w/ gun control? Oh, right, nothing.

Haven't been robbed. Doesn't mean I won't be.
Don't hunt but have packs of coyotes and numerous vermin.
Yes but then they're not exactly collectible as you've damaged them. Take that toy out of the package.

Why should I justify what I "need"?

Need, need, need. What does your office being bombed have to do w/ gun control? Oh, right, nothing.

Haven't been robbed. Doesn't mean I won't be.
Don't hunt but have packs of coyotes and numerous vermin.
Yes but then they're not exactly collectible as you've damaged them. Take that toy out of the package.

Why should I justify what I "need"?

Simply because you don't need it. As you have proved.

Back to blaming the victims of crime for the actions of criminals. You might also note that deaths by children have dropped in the US even w/ more firearms and less restrictions.

You ignored what I said. You originally said that those who legally own firearms are less likly to use them, thus you thought, disproving my point that more gun ownership leads to more danger. I point out that it isnt the people who own guns we should be afraid of. It is the guns themselves. If every person on every street has a gun then it makes it easier for a criminal to get one and thus the situation is more dangerous.

Deaths by children may have dropped, but they are nowhere near as low as in the UK



So there's zero crime in the UK? Nobody gets murdered, robbed, raped? Really?

Do not twist what I said. I said that the police are caperble of protecting us to the extent that we do not need guns to protect ourselves. Obviously there is crime, but clearly it is not as bad as it is in the US if in the US you need guns to help protect yourselves. We do fine in the UK without.

They seem to protect us far better than the US police do, if you need guns to solve your crime problems

Answer my question.



Firstly, its vermin.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/varmint

Secondly, that is not what I said. There are vermin but when there are vermin, we call the government to deal with it and they do.

Everywhere? Really?



No, but we shall let logic. You may feel that you 'need' a gun, but your feeling of need is outweighed by the question of safety. You are still able to satisfy your need at a club.

Define "safety". None of my firearms have ever committed a crime nor has anyone been hurt by them. Your fears shouldn't justify infringement.




And thats not an argument. Why is it silly that guns do not need to be leathl when you collect them.

Ever break a collectible? Is it worth the same?



The Bible verse "What should a main have if he gains the whole world but loses his soul" is a very old verse and a very predictable verse to use in certian situations. But predictablity does not mean invalidity. It is still a valid point to make when it comes to faustisan bargins. In the same way my arguments may be predictable, doesnt make them wrong and it doesnt make you more intellegent for noticing that. So get off you podium and look around. You arnt better than me for prediciting an argument that opposes and beats your own.

It opposes but does not "beat" in any way. If it' predictable, that means it's been used so many times and been debunked so many times it's worthless.

Just because you don't like the answers, doesn't mean they're invalidated either. It was asked "what other purpose", then the traditional moving of the goalposts after the answer. THat's a logical fallacy BTW.

Why should I justify what I "need"?

Because its a public safety issue. If I told you I needed 12 tonnes of explosives don't you think that someone would want to know why??

Or is it fine for me to have unresticted access to explosives because i feel that I need them (to go fishing or whatever)

Why is need relevant? There are plenty of things in our house we don't need. Many people own dangerous things they don't need, like steak knives or chainsaws. If you say knives, for example, are used because they have other needs like chopping food, according to you someone who doesn't cook much should be prohibited from owning a knife.

Why should I justify what I "need"?

Because of the danger it presents to others.

Me me me. Its all about what "I" need, what "I" want. America does seem to be rather like that. Land of the inescapable self. Indiviualism pushed to its extremes. Here in Europe we have learnt that hey guess what, there are other people around. If you stoped to consider them you might think "Whether or not I intend it, me having a gun in public is dangerous to them"

You ignored what I said. You originally said that those who legally own firearms are less likly to use them, thus you thought, disproving my point that more gun ownership leads to more danger. I point out that it isnt the people who own guns we should be afraid of. It is the guns themselves. If every person on every street has a gun then it makes it easier for a criminal to get one and thus the situation is more dangerous.

And yet that is a fallacy. "guns" do nothing. Criminals use them illegally.

Deaths by children may have dropped, but they are nowhere near as low as in the UK

And that means what?




Do not twist what I said. I said that the police are caperble of protecting us to the extent that we do not need guns to protect ourselves. Obviously there is crime, but clearly it is not as bad as it is in the US if in the US you need guns to help protect yourselves. We do fine in the UK without.

Others feel differently. The crime levels in the UK (other than murder) are similar to the US.

Because of the danger it presents to others.

And you haven't shown that me owning a firearm is a "danger to others".

Me me me. Its all about what "I" need, what "I" want. America does seem to be rather like that. Land of the inescapable self. Indiviualism pushed to its extremes. Here in Europe we have learnt that hey guess what, there are other people around. If you stoped to consider them you might think "Whether or not I intend it, me having a gun in public is dangerous to them"

And the classic US bashing. You "believe" that having a firearm is dangerous. That's all it is. I believe differently.

Because its a public safety issue. If I told you I needed 12 tonnes of explosives don't you think that someone would want to know why??

Or is it fine for me to have unresticted access to explosives because i feel that I need them (to go fishing or whatever)

Firearms /= explosives. Try again.

Need, need, need. What does your office being bombed have to do w/ gun control? Oh, right, nothing.

Haven't been robbed. Doesn't mean I won't be.
Don't hunt but have packs of coyotes and numerous vermin.
Yes but then they're not exactly collectible as you've damaged them. Take that toy out of the package.

Why should I justify what I "need"?

My point about my office being bombed was to show that even in a violent society it is not necessary for the ordinary citizen to hold a lethal weapon, a gun.

And yet that is a fallacy. "guns" do nothing. Criminals use them illegally.

Explosives do nothing.. Criminals use them illegally.

So would you be fine with legally letting terrorists have access to large amounts of explosives without restiction?

So why are guns different to explosives based on any of the arguments you have put forward. Why should the general populice be resticted in the way they purchase explosives but the way they purchase guns be unrestricted?

The "well regulated militia" is dependant on an armed populace, not the other way around.


in what way is the lady with the .22 in her purse well regulated?. She may well not know how to work the darn thing, not remember if its loaded, leave the saftey off, leave it in her pusrse for the kid to find, have her purse nicked and it then be in criminal hands. well regulated?, right.

A minimal number of breaking and enterings of domiciles happen with a gun, and the best advice is not to disturb them anyway - avoid confrontation, call the police and claim the insurance.

i didn't say it was advice people took.


BFC has been debunked

fine, then why do you have a much higher murder/gun death rate than the next two western democracies with vaguely comparable levels of gun ownership.?
Something is up.

The most rural areas, with legitimate reasons for owning a gun - wild animals, hunting, etc have lower murder rates than the inner cities where the only vermin are rats. (can you get a rat between the eyes with a .22 at 20 paces?)
I know "legitinmate" in this context is subjective, but there are no reasons i can see in the city to own a gun (and i live in a big city).
If you don't trust the police to protect you then move to a cabin in the middle of nowhere (vermont is nice this time of year)

My point about my office being bombed was to show that even in a violent society it is not necessary for the ordinary citizen to hold a lethal weapon, a gun.

It has nothing to do w/ gun control. Unless you're trying to say that the explosives used were legally obtained.

Firearms /= explosives. Try again.

Based on any of your points what is the difference between explosives and guns?

Both can be used to deter crime, legitimate business use and for overthrowing rogue governments.. where on your terms is there a difference?

Explosives do nothing.. Criminals use them illegally.

So would you be fine with legally letting terrorists have access to large amounts of explosives without restiction?

So why are guns different to explosives based on any of the arguments you have put forward. Why should the general populice be resticted in the way they purchase explosives but the way they purchase guns be unrestricted?

And the slippery slope continues along w/ the addition of "terrorists". Did I say I supported no restrictions? You honestly think that explosives are the same as a firearm? Really?

Based on any of your points what is the difference between explosives and guns?

Both can be used to deter crime, legitimate business use and for overthrowing rogue governments.. where on your terms is there a difference?

Um, no. How can they be used to "deter crime"? Really. Are you going to go to Nuke's next?

in what way is the lady with the .22 in her purse well regulated?. She may well not know how to work the darn thing, not remember if its loaded, leave the saftey off, leave it in her pusrse for the kid to find, have her purse nicked and it then be in criminal hands. well regulated?, right.

Read the thread. "Well regulated" is subordinate.








fine, then why do you have a much higher murder/gun death rate than the next two western democracies with vaguely comparable levels of gun ownership.?
Something is up.

Poor social experiments are one reason.

The most rural areas, with legitimate reasons for owning a gun - wild animals, hunting, etc have lower murder rates than the inner cities where the only vermin are rats. (can you get a rat between the eyes with a .22 at 20 paces?)

Yep. Done it.


I know "legitinmate" in this context is subjective, but there are no reasons i can see in the city to own a gun (and i live in a big city).
If you don't trust the police to protect you then move to a cabin in the middle of nowhere (vermont is nice this time of year)

I live in the middle of nowhere.

Um, no. How can they be used to "deter crime"? Really. Are you going to go to Nuke's next?

I explained in an earlier post... strapping 12 sticks of gelignite to your vest and attaching a detonator would be an excellent deterant. I guarantee not a single person would try to mug you.... It would certainly be more effective and about as risky to your on person as carring a gun....

And you haven't shown that me owning a firearm is a "danger to others".



And the classic US bashing. You "believe" that having a firearm is dangerous. That's all it is. I believe differently.

The sole purpose of a gun is to inflict damage , at such a distance that the bearer of the gun remains in relative safety. A knife is a nasty weapon but at least the user of that knive leaves himself open to injury. A gun is a coward's weapon which is why it is the weapon of choice of criminals in the US. It is so blindingly obvious that gun control in the US would reduce violent crime that only someone addicted to the culture of the gun cannot see it.

I explained in an earlier post... strapping 12 sticks of gelignite to your vest and attaching a detonator would be an excellent deterant. I guarantee not a single person would try to mug you.... It would certainly be more effective and about as risky to your on person as carring a gun....

It may sound ridiculous to you... but it sounds about as ridiculous to me as the idea that carrying a gun is somehow going to protect you.

The few people I know who have been mugged while carrying a gun said there was no way in hell they would have brought it out.. who would risk getting shot over $50... I personally would rather have my $50 taken than shoot or be shot at by someone else.

As for bringing down rogue governments.. explosives have proven in the past to be far more effective weapons in the hands of guerrillas than guns every have been..

It may sound ridiculous to you... but it sounds about as ridiculous to me as the idea that carrying a gun is somehow going to protect you.

The few people I know who have been mugged while carrying a gun said there was no way in hell they would have brought it out.. who would risk getting shot over $50... I personally would rather have my $50 taken than shoot or be shot at by someone else.

As for bringing down rogue governments.. explosives have proven in the past to be far more effective weapons in the hands of guerrillas than guns every have been..
Helpotistan
As you may have gathered I live in Northern Ireland. I have two daughters living in Sydney.
It is good to know that the average Aussie citizen does not feel the compulsion to carry a weapon!

Helpotistan
As you may have gathered I live in Northern Ireland. I have two daughters living in Sydney.
It is good to know that the average Aussie citizen does not feel the compulsion to carry a weapon!

I might point out that the people I knew who got mugged carrying a gun were Americans in America:)

Guns can be acquired with a licence but they are pretty restrictive. Very few people in the city would own one, and the only people who carry them are the police.

I actually think its pretty poor that the police still carry them. Sure there should be specially trained swat type teams that do.. but your average policeman is poorly trained in their use and are as likely to cause trouble with them as anything else.

But yeah sydney is a pretty safe place in general. I am sure your daughters are having a great time here :)

I might point out that the people I knew who got mugged carrying a gun were Americans in America:)

Guns can be acquired with a licence but they are pretty restrictive. Very few people in the city would own one, and the only people who carry them are the police.

I actually think its pretty poor that the police still carry them. Sure there should be specially trained swat type teams that do.. but your average policeman is poorly trained in their use and are as likely to cause trouble with them as anything else.

But yeah sydney is a pretty safe place in general. I am sure your daughters are having a great time here :)

Have we lost our gun-toting, varmint chaser?
I was in Sydney last Christmas. Great city, but New Year's day was too bloody hot for a pastie faced Northern European!

How about Explosives?

Explosives can be used for fishing , demolition, clearing land.

They have proved to be the most effective weapon against governments in the past. Far more so than guns.... why not legalise bombs?

How about'em?

Up until 9/11 - I don't know about since then - one could get dynamite simply by showing a driver's license.

cars are dangerous their use is resticted.

In the US, only inasmuch as they are used on the public roads. Stay off the public roads and you don't need a license, registration or insurance. Neither is there an age restriction.

Why is this difficult to see??

What other RIGHT requires a permit to exercise?

Politics has nothing to do with it. Why does the ordinary citizen require a tool, whose sole purpose is to harm, maim , or kill?

If the citizen is law-abiding, what makes it your business?

Does the Olympic committee know that gun's sole purpose is to harm, maim or kill?

Better clue'em in...

The government isn't allowed to restrict ALL guns, there are restrictions on automatics and silencers et cetera however. I don't see why it really matters, criminals would find ways to get guns illegally like they always have.

I said its arguable. There are more gun related deaths in the US than the UK per 10,000 people.

Different cultures.

We are not subjects.

If everyone carried chainsaws around the way Americans carry guns and there were more chainsaw related deaths, would you claim no correlation?

Hollywood is rotting your brain.

Just how many law-abiding Americans do you think carry guns?

No. Protect the many from the actions of the few.

No.

Protect the minority from the abuses of the many.

In the UK the police do that for us

I say, Mr. Criminal. Would you mind waiting a bit while I ring up the police? Thanks much, Care for a spot of tea?

In the UK we keep the guns in the private clubs for that, you don't need your own.

Your authority to define need is derived from where, again?

You dont need the gun to be leathal to collect it.

Sure. If all you're collecting is a hunk of metal.

If you collect books, do you rip out the last half of the chapters?
If you collect paintings, do you scrape off the paint?
If you collect cars, do you scrap the engines?

And, again, from where do you derive your authority to define need?

Yes, but with legalised gun ownership, it is far easier for said nutjob to get a gun and hurt someone.

Part of the price for having the RIGHT.

Err, yes it does. In the UK because it is so hard to get hold of guns, the police can protect us just fine.

Part of being subjects, I suppose.

In the US, the police are not obligated to "protect" you. They are obligated to enforce the law, that's it.

And, that's all I want'em to do. I don't want them "protecting" me.

And, that's all I want'em to do. I don't want them "protecting" me.


The way you said that... made the police seem... creepy...

I don't have any easy answers (let alone sollutions), other than returning to a strict construtionist way of reading the second amendment, removing guns from the general population, and leave the Criminals and the Police with the guns.

Dmonstrating an utter lack of understanding what the Second Amendment says.

Let's do the same with the First, shall we? Freedom of speech is hereby removed from the general populace and reserved ONLY to the press.

I explained in an earlier post... strapping 12 sticks of gelignite to your vest and attaching a detonator would be an excellent deterant. I guarantee not a single person would try to mug you.... It would certainly be more effective and about as risky to your on person as carring a gun....

What happens if you get into a car accident, caught in a fire, recieve a static shock, etc, and the vest you're wearing (for the purpose of protection) goes off, killing yourself and potentially others, destroying property around you, and causing chaos?

I don't carry my firearm for personal protection (it'd be kind of hard, considering I own a rifle). I own a firearm so I can punch holes in paper from long range, and if I ever get a hunting license, to hunt with (although I would prefer to get either a shotgun or a bolt action rifle in a caliber higher than .223/5.56mm).

I say, Mr. Criminal. Would you mind waiting a bit while I ring up the police? Thanks much, Care for a spot of tea?

Thank you for your ignorent sterotyping

In the US if you need guns to protect yourselves from crime, your problem must logically be worse if in the UK we dont.


Sure. If all you're collecting is a hunk of metal.

If you collect books, do you rip out the last half of the chapters?
If you collect paintings, do you scrape off the paint?
If you collect cars, do you scrap the engines?

Model planes are hunks of plastic and metal. As are model cars. Do not apply reductionalism selectively. I could argue that any X thing is something rubbish by applying subjective reducitionist thinking to it.

The signifenct diffrence, as you know, is that a gun is leathal when it has bullets in. A gun is a weapon, first and formost. It is designed to destroy. A book, painting or car are not weapons. They can kill but only when used severly improperly.


And, again, from where do you derive your authority to define need?

By virtue of logic. Democratic governments have that right

I don't carry my firearm for personal protection (it'd be kind of hard, considering I own a rifle). I own a firearm so I can punch holes in paper from long range, and if I ever get a hunting license, to hunt with (although I would prefer to get either a shotgun or a bolt action rifle in a caliber higher than .223/5.56mm).

You dont need to own your own gun to do that. The club where you do that can own the gun itself. To allow people to privately own guns is dangerous, as the US aptly demonstrates.

Because of the danger it presents to others.

Really? By the law-abiding?

Me me me. Its all about what "I" need, what "I" want.

Actually, no. It's rights rights rights.

If you stoped to consider them you might think "Whether or not I intend it, me having a gun in public is dangerous to them"

If you obey the law, it's not dangerous at all.

Kidding, or are you serious?

The common hunting round is far more powerful than any infantry round the military uses.

A man goes down a lot easier than a 10-pt. buck, a wild boar, a kodiak, an elk, a moose, a rhino, an elephant, an - well, you should get the idea.

The only thing military-grade firearms have over hunting arms is rate of fire. And, the higher the ROF, the lower the accuracy.

The reason why rate of fire matters is because you're going to have 2-3 kills with a hunting rifle, or 20-30 wounded with proportionately more kills because they can spray more bullets into a crowd.

My point about my office being bombed was to show that even in a violent society it is not necessary for the ordinary citizen to hold a lethal weapon, a gun.

According to you.

From where do you derive the authority to dictate necessities to others?

Guns can be acquired with a licence but they are pretty restrictive.

Hmm. I have about a dozen and not a single license for any of them. All legally owned, too.

Very few people in the city would own one, and the only people who carry them are the police.

Depends on the city.

In Arizona, open carry is perfectly legal, without a license. In Texas, open carry of a long gun is perfectly legal.

Thank you for your ignorent sterotyping

And, you're not with respect to gun owners? You have done all but shout that we are all criminals, bent on taking out the nearest shopping mall.

Here, meet my friend, the mirror.

In the US if you need guns to protect yourselves from crime, your problem must logically be worse if in the UK we dont.

I don't need my weapons to protect myself from crime. That is not why I have them and is way down on the list.

The signifenct diffrence, as you know, is that a gun is leathal when it has bullets in.

Ah! A change in story. So convenient.

It is designed to destroy.

As I've said, tell it to the Olympic Committee.

By virtue of logic. Democratic governments have that right

No, they don't.

Governments have NO rights. They have only what the people allow them, or what they usurp.

The reason why rate of fire matters is because you're going to have 2-3 kills with a hunting rifle, or 20-30 wounded with proportionately more kills because they can spray more bullets into a crowd.

You mean like the shooter back in the 60s who used a RIFLE from the UT Austin tower?

You dont need to own your own gun to do that. The club where you do that can own the gun itself. To allow people to privately own guns is dangerous, as the US aptly demonstrates.

First off, I don't belong to a gun club, so if I want to go target shooting, I do need to own a rifle (the public shooting range I go to does not have the facilities to store firearms on a long term basis). Second off, what about hunting? As I said in the post that you responded to, I am considering taking the Hunter's Safety course, in preperation of getting my hunting license. What am I supposed to do if I get my license and do want to go hunting, borrow a rifle from one of the animals in the state forest?

I also would like to point out that my rifle has never wounded, maimed, or killed anyone. It is locked up at all times that I'm not using it, and has a trigger lock on it (CT state law only requires a trigger lock OR locking it up). I have never pointed it at anyone (even while it was unloaded) either, so there is little/no chance of an accident. It is an inanimate object that needs an external force to make it function.

Why do people keep bringing up need, when they talk about banning firearms. People don't NEED many of the things they have. I don't need to have a water-cooled computer (water + electricity = dangerous), but I do anyway. I don't need to have an R/C car capable of hitting 65 mph (at that speed, it's capable of breaking someone's bone(s)), but I do anyway. I'm sure you have many things that you don't need, but could be potentially hazardous with the right circumstances.

The general public is the Militia. Having a well regulated one is A justification, but not the only one.

So everyone who isn't a male from the age of 18 to 45 is not a member of the general public? Because that's what a militia is.

Really? By the law-abiding?.

Yes, but the law abiding owning weapons freely makes it easieir for the non law abiding to get a hold of one, thus making the situation more dangerous.

Turn the situation to explosives, if your law abiding with them they are perfectly safe, of course. And thus its ok if everyone has them. After all, if they are law abiding with it, its ok.


Actually, no. It's rights rights rights.

After having studied 3000 odd years of European history, I can tell you this now. That attiude does nothing but cause trouble. Rights do not exist in a vaccum. They have to be qualified and have with them responsabilites


If you obey the law, it's not dangerous at all.

Follow that logic. You can thus justify everyone privately owning nuclear weapons. After all if they are law abiding with them its fine. And to those who say they dont need them, where do you get that authority for saying who needs what.


And, you're not with respect to gun owners? You have done all but shout that we are all criminals, bent on taking out the nearest shopping mall.

That is not what I have said. If you can quote me saying any such thing I would like to see it. What I have said is that gun ownership on a wide scale means that it is more acessable for those who do want to use guns for illicit purposes. And with guns owned so widely, it is much easier for someone to obtain one illegally. You just need to break into a house etc. Its much easier to get a gun illegally if they are widely owned.


Ah! A change in story. So convenient.

Please demonstrate a change in story. Neo Sanderstead has already said the same thing in previous posts. Gun collection is fine, but the guns do not need to be operational. They do not need bullets.

You mean like the shooter back in the 60s who used a RIFLE from the UT Austin tower?

Right, rifles in the hands of someone intent to kill people are dangerous. He also had excellent positioning, cover, and surprise on his side. You rush into a crowd with a hunting rifle and start shooting, you might kill 1-2 people and injure a few more.

You run into a crowd with a modified ak-47 for civilian use, with a banana clip with 50 rounds, you're going to hurt alot more people.

Actually, criminals will get the guns illegally if they want them. If they're willing to use them with criminal intent, they're willing to get them.

Also, what about kitchen knives? Should we ban those too, because you could kill someone with them? They're extremely lethal weapons. Does this mean we should make them illegal, or bog ownership down with tons of red tape and permits?

Heck, you could smash someone's brains out with a baseball bat. Better get rid of those.

A car? Oof, you could seriously do some damage with that. They better go.

The point I'm trying to make is that many things can be used to kill someone, but noone talks about banning them (I hope).

Secondly, despite all the statistics the anti-gun speakers have given us, it has been shown that crimes are worse in countries like the UK and Canada because the people with guns (criminals) can get away with it. If I'm not mistaken, British cops only recently started carrying guns, because the gangsters got out of hand. Heck, look at Tony Martin. Man got jailed because he defended his home. Was he supposed to nicely ask the robbers to leave? I don't understand.

Yes, but the law abiding owning weapons freely makes it easieir for the non law abiding to get a hold of one, thus making the situation more dangerous.

Criminals can get firearms if they want them, regardless of the legality of ownership by law abiding citizens. Google Philip Luty, and you'll see how easy it is to manufacture an open-bolt, fully automatic sub-machingun. There's also smuggling (the porous borders the US has is partially to blame for that).


Turn the situation to explosives, if your law abiding with them they are perfectly safe, of course. And thus its ok if everyone has them. After all, if they are law abiding with it, its ok.

That is not true. Just because you're law abiding does not mean you're safe. All that means is that you can own it legally. I took an NRA safety course before I bought my firearm, and know the rules of safe firearms handling. I also have my firearm properly stored, and use the correct ammunition (failure to do so can be unsafe) when I do fire my firearm.

After having studied 3000 odd years of European history, I can tell you this now. That attiude does nothing but cause trouble. Rights do not exist in a vaccum. They have to be qualified and have with them responsabilites

I think that the US qualified the right to keep and bear arms starting in 1776. Also, millions of hunters and target shooters qualify the right to keep and bear arms every year.

Follow that logic. You can thus justify everyone privately owning nuclear weapons. After all if they are law abiding with them its fine. And to those who say they dont need them, where do you get that authority for saying who needs what.

Due to the hazardous materials that are needed in it's construction, nuclear weapons require regular maintainance, or they can become a danger to everyone in a large area. Firearms do not need hazardous materials (they are made with steel, aluminum, and/or composites), and can sit unmaintained and unhandled indefinitely without becoming a hazard.

let's backtrack a very long way...

the law is wrong. thus is the constitution.

thus i don't care what it says has to say on the matter as it is 200 years old and wrong on this issue.

so the constitution is wrong on the issue of free speech? or the abolition of slavery? or the harsh punishment given for sedition/treason? or the right to vote without regard to race or religion? the constitution's wrong on all those too?

you're going to give a rebuttal, but you've already defeated any further argument

for the rest of it:

a) People who talk about the militia: firstly, theres USC 10. secondly, the second amendment does not confer the right upon citizens, it recognizes a preexisting right.
b) self-defense is a basic human right that is self-evident in the right to life. banning any weapon which can be used to defend one's life(there are even people who try concealed carry with a legally registered short-barreled 12-gauge) is like banning food.
c) with england's near-total gun ban, the break-in rate went up tremendously. the english courts are actually so fucked up that criminals are more protected than the honest citizen who wants to keep his property
d) since the purpose of criminal laws is to protect the rights of the people, if the laws are written with this in mind, the person who violates those laws(a mugger, burglar, carjacker, etc.) has declared himself to have no respect for individual rights and deserves death
e) guns are just plain fun to shoot. try it for once and you'll agree. also, take a look at how many professional target shooters ever commit a crime and then you'll shut up
f) gun deaths don't even scratch the surface of tobacco- and alcohol-related deaths. how well did Prohibition work? has the anti-smoking campaign met with meaningful success?
g) i'd rather have one and not need one than need one and not have one
h) governments naturally encroach upon the rights of their people and as such must be kept limited to the greatest extent safe for the populace

and most importantly:

i) LAWS DO NOT STOP ANY PERSON DETERMINED TO BREAK THEM. CRIMINALS WILL BE ABLE TO OBTAIN GUNS WHETHER THEY ARE LEGAL OR NOT, SO IT'S MUCH BETTER THAT THE PEOPLE AT LARGE BE EQUALLY ARMED.

You dont need to own your own gun to do that. The club where you do that can own the gun itself. To allow people to privately own guns is dangerous, as the US aptly demonstrates.
Another example of dogma. Assuming the gun ownership alone is dangerous.

I am a gun owner/avid hunter and I will tell you that many people DO NOT hunt at a club or some place that would provide guns. Many choose to hunt on personal or a friends land. Also, I would probably be safe to assume that many hunting reserves would laugh at you when you tell them you need a rifle to rent.

Actually, criminals will get the guns illegally if they want them. If they're willing to use them with criminal intent, they're willing to get them.


http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/ZipGun.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_gun

Emphasis on the matter of how easy it is to develop an automatic weapon all on your lonesome, or perhaps a shotgun pistol?

The ever classic broken car antenna makes for a great barrel for a .22 caliber zip gun. Just tape a rubber band to it, and put a nail in the rubber band. Boom, you've got yourself a pistol.

Gun control is good. Going so far as to restrict guns from legal, law abiding citizens is too much because they won't have anything when the criminals break in toting guns. It is probably easier to get guns illegally than legally, that is the biggest problem. So gun control often helps to keep the good without protection against the bad. Not in all cases or all areas but in NYC to get a gun permit is like trying to discover gold in Antarctica.

Democracy demands in the end a strict control of weapons. A democratic system is based on the idea that only the state is allow to use any kind of force, no citizen shall have the right to execute force.

We do not need to forget that democracy is the result of the Absolutism State. The Absolutism monarchy develop the instruments the people are able use and the equality of all: First as subjects of the monarch, now a citizens and part of the Sovereign.

Even in a democratic decision a democratic system can not allow anyone to have weapons without destroying the very basis of it mere existent.

So: Only the democratic government and the institutions shall have weapons at all.

Governments have NO rights. They have only what the people allow them, or what they usurp.

That's the wrong way around - all the power and all rights are vested within the state. The state has the absolute right of all his subjects property and live. This is mere definition of the public power.

The only difference of a democratic state is that the government justifies the execution of this rights with the human rights and that the state limits its power in a way that the human rights are not in their substance violated.

As far as the Second amendment is concerned. It is there because the people who wrote the Constitution just finished a war with a restrictive monarchy. So they included a right that their descendents will have not only the authority to change their government but also the means to do so if it doesn’t comply. The loss of this right would put guns in only two hands. The governments' and the criminals'.

Democracy demands in the end a strict control of weapons. A democratic system is based on the idea that only the state is allow to use any kind of force, no citizen shall have the right to execute force.

We do not need to forget that democracy is the result of the Absolutism State. The Absolutism monarchy develop the instruments the people are able use and the equality of all: First as subjects of the monarch, now a citizens and part of the Sovereign.

Even in a democratic decision a democratic system can not allow anyone to have weapons without destroying the very basis of it mere existent.

So: Only the democratic government and the institutions shall have weapons at all.


Democracy demands no such thing. Democracy is based on the will of the people. And living in the US, I'm no subject of the Monarch. I live in a Representative Democracy.

You don't believe in giving a person the tools to defend their lives and the lives of their family if threatened?

Democracy demands in the end a strict control of weapons. A democratic system is based on the idea that only the state is allow to use any kind of force, no citizen shall have the right to execute force.

We do not need to forget that democracy is the result of the Absolutism State. The Absolutism monarchy develop the instruments the people are able use and the equality of all: First as subjects of the monarch, now a citizens and part of the Sovereign.

Even in a democratic decision a democratic system can not allow anyone to have weapons without destroying the very basis of it mere existent.

So: Only the democratic government and the institutions shall have weapons at all.


You're on the right track but you've got it backwards. Democracy is a DEVOLUTION of power down to the hands of individual citizens, and while any nation-state requires the sole use of legitimized force to be vested in the governing authority, that requirement becomes more stringent as comparative freedoms decline. So actually democracies are inherently more violent internally than non-democracies simply because their very structure places more power, both political and otherwise, in the hands of the common man, who as we know can do some pretty stupid things.

So everyone who isn't a male from the age of 18 to 45 is not a member of the general public? Because that's what a militia is.

The Militia is what again? Oh, right, the people.

Criminals can get firearms if they want them, regardless of the legality of ownership by law abiding citizens. Google Philip Luty, and you'll see how easy it is to manufacture an open-bolt, fully automatic sub-machingun. There's also smuggling (the porous borders the US has is partially to blame for that).


But guess what, it would be much harder for people to get guns if they were not publically availble.

You don't believe in giving a person the tools to defend their lives and the lives of their family if threatened?

In the UK, we manage without those tools just fine. The US should take a lesson from us

In the UK, we manage without those tools just fine. The US should take a lesson from us

Why? Are you saying your culture is superior?

But guess what, it would be much harder for people to get guns if they were not publically availble.

Which is the point of opposing more firearm restrictions, so the people have access to them.

Heck, look at Tony Martin. Man got jailed because he defended his home. Was he supposed to nicely ask the robbers to leave? I don't understand.

he shot a kid in the back with an illegally held weapon. nothing in English law qualifies that as defending ones poperty.

Why? Are you saying your culture is superior?

we have fewer people per thousand killed by guns every year............. and i'll see your indignation and raise you a Shakespeare and a Dickens.

In Canada where there is are a lot of guns simmilar to the US but Canada has a much lower rate of gun deaths, what's the reason? Sharing the same continent and language and a linked history they have more in common than most countries. We do have very different cultures and outlook on government, that definitely affects how they view gun control.

-mandatory gun registration in Canada-without doubt registrations stops a lot of gun illegal transactions, passing from the hands of legal gun owners into the hands of those prohibited from owning guns. Critics will say that there is no evidence supporting gun control stops crime but how do you measure such a claim? Surly a criminal cannot commit a gun crime if he cannot gain access to a gun.

-registrations are an aid to Police attending domestic disputes, they like to know when arriving at home if there are any weapons present. If it saves only one Policeman's life every ten years this alone makes mandatory registration worthwhile.

The biggest difference between the USA and Canada, handguns, they are difficult to obtain, the average citizen needs a very compelling reason to own one, membership to a Gun Club(target shooting) is acceptable, as are collectors,and those who can demonstrate a need of guns to protect their lives(difficult, maybe if the Russian mafia had you on their hitlist). Storage and transportation of guns is also strictly regulated, which minimizes the chances of theft and accidental usage by children. Hunting with handguns is forbidden as they are inefficient at killing game causing unnecessary suffering.

The fact is that handguns are very restricted and not common, therefore there are much fewer of them for criminals to gain access to by illegal means. Fewer handguns, fewer deaths as handguns are the preferred weapon for murders and crimes as they are easily concealable.



And just for those who claim that they need to guns/militia's to protect themselves from their government.....It's been estimated that 5% of the tax paying population refusing to pay their taxes is enough to cause the collapse of their government without a shot being fired. The massive bureaucratic nightmare would paralyze the government (in the US that would mean about 15 million people for the government to process). Plus the loss of revenue alone would be crippling.

ummm...... having no control over tools designed to kill is pretty stupid, whatever the law or your all-sacred constitution says.


i don't care if thats dogma or not

You can kill someone with a spoon. Don't believe me? go to a prison.

You can kill someone with a spoon. Don't believe me? go to a prison.

desperate logic-let me know the next time someone threatens you with a spoon.

Question asked of my Korean Martial Arts Instructor a 9th degree black belt.
-student-"what do you when confronted by someone with a knife?"
-Instructor-"run away"
-student-" what do you do when someone has a gun?"
-Instructor-"give him your money,or he'll kill you! You have been watching to many movies!"

Guns are not spoons or even knives, they are not comparable. A 12 yr old threatening you with a spoon or knife which do you fear most? I can outrun a spoon can you outrun a bullet?

desperate logic-let me know the next time someone threatens you with a spoon.

Question asked of my Korean Martial Arts Instructor a 9th degree black belt.
-student-"what do you when confronted by someone with a knife?"
-Instructor-"run away"
-student-" what do you do when someone has a gun?"
-Instructor-"give him your money,or he'll kill you! You have been watching to many movies!"

Guns are not spoons or even knives, they are not comparable. A 12 yr old threatening you with a spoon or knife which do you fear most? I can outrun a spoon can you outrun a bullet?

The moral of it though is that any of them can kill you, guns are just more convenient, but you understand that.

But, as far as being designed to kill (not necessarily "people," mind you), maybe I want an unregistered gun so I can kill people. I'm allowed to have a gun to be able to kill, heck, that's constitutional; however, I'm not constitutionally allowed to just kill someone.

Let me have my guns, just don't let me kill people.

So, to do that, the legislation must be something else entirely rather than about controlling the guns: control the people who can't use them responsibly.

Model planes are hunks of plastic and metal. As are model cars. Do not apply reductionalism selectively. I could argue that any X thing is something rubbish by applying subjective reducitionist thinking to it.

Exactly. So, if you make a weapon inoperable, you make it into rubbish.

And, a non-collectable.

desperate logic-let me know the next time someone threatens you with a spoon.

Question asked of my Korean Martial Arts Instructor a 9th degree black belt.
-student-"what do you when confronted by someone with a knife?"
-Instructor-"run away"
-student-" what do you do when someone has a gun?"
-Instructor-"give him your money,or he'll kill you! You have been watching to many movies!"

Guns are not spoons or even knives, they are not comparable. A 12 yr old threatening you with a spoon or knife which do you fear most? I can outrun a spoon can you outrun a bullet?

Any Ex con with a spoon is just as scary as one with a gun. Prison can teach anyone to be as leathal as the deadliest assault weapon.

obviously so can military spec ops of police forces... but the Ex cons...they have more of a motive to use the knowlege for evil, not good.

Exactly. So, if you make a weapon inoperable, you make it into rubbish.

And, a non-collectable.

You could always just wail on someone with it....

Yes, but the law abiding owning weapons freely makes it easieir for the non law abiding to get a hold of one, thus making the situation more dangerous.

Then, you address the law-breakers, not the law-abiding.

Certainly, some will still get weapons, even if it's via the black-market. What else is new? It is irrelevant to the fact that we have a RIGHT to arms.

Turn the situation to explosives, if your law abiding with them they are perfectly safe, of course. And thus its ok if everyone has them. After all, if they are law abiding with it, its ok.

It is with me.

After having studied 3000 odd years of European history, I can tell you this now. That attiude does nothing but cause trouble.

Life causes trouble. You having that widget that the other guy is willing to break the law to take from you does not mean you should not be allowed to have the widget.

Rights do not exist in a vaccum. They have to be qualified and have with them responsabilites

The only responsibilities are those that result from the ABUSE of a right, not from having it.

Follow that logic. You can thus justify everyone privately owning nuclear weapons. After all if they are law abiding with them its fine. And to those who say they dont need them, where do you get that authority for saying who needs what.

As I've said elsewhere, that's fine with me.

Of course, nuclear weapons aren't cheap and I can see one being required to ensure that they have proper storage to keep the radiation from leaving their property line.

Otherwise, go for it.

Willing to bet, though, that there won't be a clamor for nuclear warheads anytime soon...

Gun collection is fine, but the guns do not need to be operational.

Then, they are no longer guns, are they?

Right, rifles in the hands of someone intent to kill people are dangerous. He also had excellent positioning, cover, and surprise on his side. You rush into a crowd with a hunting rifle and start shooting, you might kill 1-2 people and injure a few more.

And what, do you suggest, causes this limited casualty list? Certainly not self-defense on the part of the victims; they are unarmed.

911 call? Typically with a 15-minute response time? Someone armed with a huntig rifle will do a lot of damage in 15 minutes.

You run into a crowd with a modified ak-47 for civilian use, with a banana clip with 50 rounds, you're going to hurt alot more people.

The same thing that stops the guy with the hunting rifle will stop the guy with the AK.

That's the wrong way around - all the power and all rights are vested within the state. The state has the absolute right of all his subjects property and live. This is mere definition of the public power.

Pure, unadulterated Bantha poodoo.

States have NO rights; only the powers assigned to them by the People. This, in the US, is exemplified by the Ninth Amendment.

As far as the Second amendment is concerned. It is there because the people who wrote the Constitution just finished a war with a restrictive monarchy. So they included a right that their descendents will have not only the authority to change their government but also the means to do so if it doesn’t comply.

Not quite.

The Second Amendment grants no rights. It protects them. The right preexists the Second Amendment.

But guess what, it would be much harder for people to get guns if they were not publically availble.

Excellent statement of the obvious. Bravo. But, irrelevant. Because we have the RIGHT to arms, the government is not empowered to restrict their availability.

In the UK, we manage without those tools just fine. The US should take a lesson from us

We fought two wars for the express purpose of not taking any lessons from England.

YOU are a subject, we are not.

we have fewer people per thousand killed by guns every year............. and i'll see your indignation and raise you a Shakespeare and a Dickens.

I'll call and raise you a Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley - oh heck, how about the whole pulling your tails out of World War II?

A 12 yr old threatening you with a spoon or knife which do you fear most? I can outrun a spoon can you outrun a bullet?

Ah. The coward's way. Got it. Punk kid threatens you with a knife, you tuck your gonads safely between your legs and run in fear for your useless life...

You could always just wail on someone with it....

Then, it's a club, not a gun.

Excellent statement of the obvious. Bravo. But, irrelevant. Because we have the RIGHT to arms, the government is not empowered to restrict their availability.

You are aware that the government gave you that right. They can take it away if they so choose

Gun ownership isnt a human right

You are aware that the government gave you that right. They can take it away if they so choose

No, they did not.

Read the Constitution sometime.

The right is extant and the Second Amendment guarantees it; it does not grant it.

You seemed to have been unaware of the Magna Carta a bunch of pages back, yet you assert knowledge of our Constitution?

Gun ownership isnt a human right

Not directly, because then a gun would have to be provided me free of charge in order that my right not be denied.

I do, however, have a right to the available tools that I deem necessary to provide for my defense.

If guns didn't exist, such a right would not include them. But, unless you've got some magic djinni bottle who can grant you a wish to make all guns disappear, they're here to stay.

So, as far as the US Constitution is concerned, even if the Second Amendment didn't exist, the Ninth Amendment would still protect the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution limits the powers of government, not those of the people. Essentially, if the Constitution doesn't proscribe it, then the people have it.

Now, am I saying that the US Constitution applies to England? Hardly. But, it does apply here.

Live with that.

Guns need to be restricted because guns are dangerous. Guns are very efficient, though often inaccurate, tools for killing. Handguns, rifles, and shotguns should be available to responsible people with balanced minds, and only after taking a safety course. Automatics, which have no use for self defense or hunting, should be restricted to the military.

Guns need to be restricted for the same reason test tubes of infectious diseases need to be restricted: because you might have a legitimate use for them, but through accident or malice, you could cause a great deal of harm with them.

I am not a rampant gun control advocate, but I don't like the idea of a world where an ex-con can walk into a sporting goods store and pick up an assault rifle. I've played enough Grand Theft Auto to know what happens next.

I repeat: if you ban guns because "they are designed only to kill," you must also ban:
Bows, Crossbows, Throwing knives (too bad. I always liked my archery and other target shooting), swords(I rather like my sword collection, but if it must go...), javelins(better tell the track and field guys that they don't get to compete in that event any more), and just about every weapon ever. (Who wants to tell the martial artists that we can only train empty handed techniques now, instead of our traditional weaponry? Most of us will not be happy.)

I am not a rampant gun control advocate, but I don't like the idea of a world where an ex-con can walk into a sporting goods store and pick up an assault rifle. I've played enough Grand Theft Auto to know what happens next.

Oh great.

The World according to GTA.

The sad part is, this poster might be able to vote - or maybe already does, which is worse. Especially when his worldview is based on what he sees in a computer game.

Sheesh...

I repeat: if you ban guns because "they are designed only to kill," you must also ban:
Bows, Crossbows, Throwing knives (too bad. I always liked my archery and other target shooting), swords(I rather like my sword collection, but if it must go...), javelins(better tell the track and field guys that they don't get to compete in that event any more), and just about every weapon ever. (Who wants to tell the martial artists that we can only train empty handed techniques now, instead of our traditional weaponry? Most of us will not be happy.)

It's not always Ban/don't ban. Crossbows, swords, throwing knives, javalins, ect. are all very inefficient, for one reason or another, and melee weapons are also rather difficult to accidentally kill someone with (outside of a sparring match, in which the other person accepts the danger.) But if you try to rob a bank with a sword and a couple javalins strapped to your back, it just won't work.

If there was a serious problem with people going on killing sprees or robbing places with swords, ect, then it would be a good idea to restrict them. As that is not the case, there really isn't a good reason.

You have to understand, also, that not everyone who is for some amount of gun control is for banning guns. I personally am for a near ban on assault weapons (pretty much just full automatics) because they are extremely deadly, can easily be used by one person to kill many innocent people, and even when legitimately used in self defense, they are easily capable of accidentally killing a great number of innocent people. I feel that other firearms (Handguns, shotguns, rifles) should be available only to those who have taken a firearms safety course.

Oh great.

The World according to GTA.

The sad part is, this poster might be able to vote - or maybe already does, which is worse. Especially when his worldview is based on what he sees in a computer game.

Sheesh...

Yeah, I mention a fucking video game and that negates my voting rights. maybe if you paid attention to a damn thing I said elsewhere you would actually have a right to say shit about me.

I don't base my worldview on GTA, I used it to make a point. Maybe if you responded to that point, rather than making pathetic ad-hominim attacks against me, you wouldn't have wasted the electrons used to transmit your post.

If you think about it, GTA has a rather pro-gun control vibe to it. In the game, you walk into gun stores, load up on guns without restriction, and then go out and make mayhem. I'm not trying to say that's reality, but are you trying to say it wouldn't ever happen if guns were totally unrestricted?

First of all, guns provide the greatest amount of home defence aside from living in an impregnable fortress. If you are armed it makes it much more difficult for a would be attack to do harm to you, your family, or your property.

Secondly, it is a right given to Americans in their constitution. There is no more sacred document in America than its constution.

In my opinion it is my right to own a gun by the 2nd amendment in the U.S. constitution. However, i do believe that citizens should not be allowed to own automatic weapons. Since i like to debate both sides of an issue i am going to give a good reason for gun-control. In the year of 2004, it was determined that the United States alone had a little over 299,000 gun homicides, thats not including suicides. The country with the next closest number to that was Germany with a little over 300. Thats a really big difference in gun-related deaths. It made me think...

Guns need to be restricted because guns are dangerous. Guns are very efficient, though often inaccurate, tools for killing. Handguns, rifles, and shotguns should be available to responsible people with balanced minds, and only after taking a safety course. Automatics, which have no use for self defense or hunting, should be restricted to the military.

Guns need to be restricted for the same reason test tubes of infectious diseases need to be restricted: because you might have a legitimate use for them, but through accident or malice, you could cause a great deal of harm with them.

I am not a rampant gun control advocate, but I don't like the idea of a world where an ex-con can walk into a sporting goods store and pick up an assault rifle. I've played enough Grand Theft Auto to know what happens next.

:eek: Holy shit! Guns are dangerous?!? You mean my rifle, which is sitting in a locked case, has a trigger lock on it, and is unloaded could potentially kill me in the middle of the night without any external force being applied to it? [/facetious]

You say firearms are dangerous, I say firearms are inanimate objects made of aluminum, steel, and/or composites. They can be highly accurate if fired by an experienced shooter (there are people that compete in 1,000 yard rifle matches). I do wish people would take a safety course before purchasing a firearm though (the safety course I took was a 10 hour NRA course, with shooting included). Automatics aren't an issue for me, because they cost too much for their owners to risk losing them by doing something illegal (a select fire M-16 runs $10-$14 thousand, not including the $200 NFA tax). That, and there's nothing in the constitution that says that you need to use a firearm only for hunting or self defense. There are sub-gun competitions, collecting, etc.

Guns don't need to be restricted, because if you keep your firearm unloaded and on safe while not using it, and if you use common sense when you're shooting, you almost CAN'T have an accident. If you're intent is malice, there are many things that aren't restricted that can cause a great deal of harm (baseball bats, cars, knives, a lighter, R/C vehicles, a magnifying glass, a fist, a foot, etc).

As to your statement about ex-cons, convicted felons cannot purchase/own/operate/posess firearms legally. The same goes for people that are diagnosed with mental illness.

Finally, the reference to GTA really doesn't help your argument.

In my opinion it is my right to own a gun by the 2nd amendment in the U.S. constitution. However, i do believe that citizens should not be allowed to own automatic weapons. Since i like to debate both sides of an issue i am going to give a good reason for gun-control. In the year of 2004, it was determined that the United States alone had a little over 299,000 gun homicides, thats not including suicides. The country with the next closest number to that was Germany with a little over 300. Thats a really big difference in gun-related deaths. It made me think...

The number of murder victims in the US in 2004 was 16,611 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_19.pdf). 11,250 of those were killed by firearms. Not including suicides. Nowhere near the 299,000 number - are you talking about something else?

(Oh, and acording to the FBI the number was 14,210 in 2004 with firearms responsible for 9,385 deaths, and an estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005, with 10,100 homicides in which firearms were used.)
(Source) (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html)

Yeah, I mention a fucking video game and that negates my voting rights. maybe if you paid attention to a damn thing I said elsewhere you would actually have a right to say shit about me.

I don't base my worldview on GTA, I used it to make a point. Maybe if you responded to that point, rather than making pathetic ad-hominim attacks against me, you wouldn't have wasted the electrons used to transmit your post.

If you think about it, GTA has a rather pro-gun control vibe to it. In the game, you walk into gun stores, load up on guns without restriction, and then go out and make mayhem. I'm not trying to say that's reality, but are you trying to say it wouldn't ever happen if guns were totally unrestricted?

What I and most other people against gun control is that it probably wouldn't happen. Think about this scenario real quick. And yes it is stolen from a TV show and props to whoever can figure out which one it is.

Let's say the government, one day, no questions asked gave a gun to every woman in America. Let's say in this hypothetical case that exactly half of the women are extreme pacifists and give theirs away. Now let's think of a rapist. He's thinking of raping someone. Do you know what one of the things on his mind will be? That there is exactly an equal chance that he will get shot and that he will succeed in the raping. 50/50 is not good odds. Most people who do a lot of betting and make a lot of money that way usually don't take those odds in a bet except in cases where the possible winnings will far outweigh the losses.

Now the same goes for what you said. The person that does that. will probably be much more likely to be gunned down himself before he can kill mass amounts of people if anyone for that matter. In you view of gun control, all you think of is that 'bad people' will have guns. You don't think that often about the fact that ten times as many 'good people' will also. So yeah, what you said, will most likely never happen or if it does, it will most likely be very unsuccessful

:eek: Holy shit! Guns are dangerous?!? You mean my rifle, which is sitting in a locked case, has a trigger lock on it, and is unloaded could potentially kill me in the middle of the night without any external force being applied to it? [/facetious]

You say firearms are dangerous, I say firearms are inanimate objects made of aluminum, steel, and/or composites. They can be highly accurate if fired by an experienced shooter (there are people that compete in 1,000 yard rifle matches). I do wish people would take a safety course before purchasing a firearm though (the safety course I took was a 10 hour NRA course, with shooting included). Automatics aren't an issue for me, because they cost too much for their owners to risk losing them by doing something illegal (a select fire M-16 runs $10-$14 thousand, not including the $200 NFA tax). That, and there's nothing in the constitution that says that you need to use a firearm only for hunting or self defense. There are sub-gun competitions, collecting, etc.

Napalm is an inanimate chemical compound. Do you think the sale of napalm should be restricted? There are much cheaper automatics available than the M-16, like the Uzi, the Tech-9, and the all-popular AK-47.

Guns don't need to be restricted, because if you keep your firearm unloaded and on safe while not using it, and if you use common sense when you're shooting, you almost CAN'T have an accident. If you're intent is malice, there are many things that aren't restricted that can cause a great deal of harm (baseball bats, cars, knives, a lighter, R/C vehicles, a magnifying glass, a fist, a foot, etc).
So did you miss the fact that I'm basically saying that guns should be restricted to people who will follow these basic safety precautions. A gun (Especially an automatic weapon) when used, can miss and hit innocent bystanders, even through walls if it's a heavy enough caliber. Basically, what
I'm saying is that handguns, rifles, and shotguns should be restricted to more or less sensible, law abiding people, and that a safety course should be required. Also, waiting periods are a good idea.
As to your statement about ex-cons, convicted felons cannot purchase/own/operate/posess firearms legally. The same goes for people that are diagnosed with mental illness.
This is, you must realize, a type of gun control.
Finally, the reference to GTA really doesn't help your argument.
Give me one good reason why, besides your kneejerk reaction that I'm immature because I refer to a video game (In my opinion, as valid as any other artistic medium) when talking about reality. I'm not saying GTA is reality.

The number of murder victims in the US in 2004 was 16,611 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_19.pdf). 11,250 of those were killed by firearms. Not including suicides. Nowhere near the 299,000 number - are you talking about something else?

(Oh, and acording to the FBI the number was 14,210 in 2004 with firearms responsible for 9,385 deaths, and an estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005, with 10,100 homicides in which firearms were used.)
(Source) (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html)

Again think about my previous post which I did post after this one was posted. People do die because of guns, and that will never cahnge no matter how much restriction you ever put on guns. It is easier for me to get a gun without going to a gun shop or getting a lisence as it is for me to do it the legal way. I know this because I have done it before. Believe me. It is not hard. Even if guns were down right illegalized and criminalized, the crime rate involving guns probably won't drop a single number.

What I and most other people against gun control is that it probably wouldn't happen. Think about this scenario real quick. And yes it is stolen from a TV show and props to whoever can figure out which one it is.

Let's say the government, one day, no questions asked gave a gun to every woman in America. Let's say in this hypothetical case that exactly half of the women are extreme pacifists and give theirs away. Now let's think of a rapist. He's thinking of raping someone. Do you know what one of the things on his mind will be? That there is exactly an equal chance that he will get shot and that he will succeed in the raping. 50/50 is not good odds. Most people who do a lot of betting and make a lot of money that way usually don't take those odds in a bet except in cases where the possible winnings will far outweigh the losses.

Now the same goes for what you said. The person that does that. will probably be much more likely to be gunned down himself before he can kill mass amounts of people if anyone for that matter. In you view of gun control, all you think of is that 'bad people' will have guns. You don't think that often about the fact that ten times as many 'good people' will also. So yeah, what you said, will most likely never happen or if it does, it will most likely be very unsuccessful
Are you actually reading my posts? When did I say that only criminals will buy guns? In fact, I believe I said that handguns, rifles, and shotguns should be available to the general public, so long as they 1: arn't insane, 2: arn't criminals, and 3: take a safety course. These restrictions will not keep guns out of the hands of the average citizen who wants to defend himself.

And don't try to tell me that a psycho with an AK-47 couldn't do significant damage, or kill a large number of police in a standoff.

No way! No restricting guns. Restrict ownership. Or something. They're just metal... well, and wood.

I just get kicks out of my native country excelling in other statistics, and then being in top 3 with USA and Somalia in guns per capita.

And yes, I do own a shotgun and a rifle. Strictly for hunting purposes, I have to add... Not for backup in case the gov't goes nuts... I think I'd go hunting if that happens.

Are you actually reading my posts? When did I say that only criminals will buy guns? In fact, I believe I said that handguns, rifles, and shotguns should be available to the general public, so long as they 1: arn't insane, 2: arn't criminals, and 3: take a safety course. These restrictions will not keep guns out of the hands of the average citizen who wants to defend himself.

And don't try to tell me that a psycho with an AK-47 couldn't do significant damage, or kill a large number of police in a standoff.

No, but you realize that it's just as easy if not easier for a criminal to get a gun than regular non insane non criminal and safe person. With gun control, it's even easier for them to get guns and use them in malicious ways

No, but you realize that it's just as easy if not easier for a criminal to get a gun than regular non insane non criminal and safe person. With gun control, it's even easier for them to get guns and use them in malicious ways

How? I understand that criminals will likely always have access to guns, but how will reasonable restrictions make it easier for them to get and use them? It's not like my proposal would lead to a completely unarmed populace.

I find the implied argument that because it's part of the US consitution, it is therefore right a bit disturbing. (Maybe we should start quoting the European Convention on Human Rights? It recognises more rights than the US consitution, though it's arguable whether or not they're just optional extras). Though most of the other arguements were valid points.
Personally I think that there are a few grey areas in this debate, and it all boils down to: what kind of society do we want? What is of the most benefit? There are pros and cons for both options, so you'll have problems and scare stories with either. In Europe (generally in the EU), we have, historically, more reason than most to mistrust our governments, but we don't "bear arms" just in case. This could be because of our welfare state, the strict restrictions on guns, or it could be cultural (maybe America links guns with the glory of the Wild West? Maybe that's too much of a sterotypical thing to say?) or a combination, but I think what we've done has worked very well for us.

It seems strange that so many Americans want guns partly because they don't trust their government, but they let laws pass so they can be put under more and more survalence. If Americans truely didn't trust their government, then why does it have the power of life and death over people (the death penalty) - isn't this an implied acceptance of a very deep and powerful trust that the government will do the right thing most, if not all of the time and that the system is, if not perfect, then close to being perfect?

The two sides are probably looking at this from two different angles:
1 side thinks, deep down, people are inherintly untrustworthy, and that to avoid a war of "all against all", law must be backed up by a monoploy of force (army + police). This creates a safe (or safer) space where people can pursue happiness, etc. in their own way within the law wheras without the law, they might have been limited by circumstances. They see strict control of force backing and promoting law as freedom-enhancing.
The other side doesn't fully trust law (or the lawmakers/enforcers). They see law as something that can take sides, might not always be neutral, and that can turn against them - it always has the potenial to restrict freedom, or not fulfil its promises (the police not being efficent, etc). Therefore government needs to be balanced by an armed, cynical people (and preferably within itself as well through different gov. structures). Law balanced by force is seen as freedom-protecting in this case.

I lean heavily towards the first option (strict gun control). For most of the pro-control reasons given, and I consider it an important part of the society I live in and want to be a part of.

Napalm is an inanimate chemical compound. Do you think the sale of napalm should be restricted? There are much cheaper automatics available than the M-16, like the Uzi, the Tech-9, and the all-popular AK-47.

Just out of curiosity, what would you use napalm for (one possible use that I can see is in farming, to clear a field after the growing season)? Also, as long as napalm can be safely stored and used for legal activities, I don't see why I'd have a problem with it being sold to civilians. Seeing as my state (CT) has storage requirements for firearms, they probably would have some sort of requirements for the storage of napalm.

So did you miss the fact that I'm basically saying that guns should be restricted to people who will follow these basic safety precautions. A gun (Especially an automatic weapon) when used, can miss and hit innocent bystanders, even through walls if it's a heavy enough caliber. Basically, what
I'm saying is that handguns, rifles, and shotguns should be restricted to more or less sensible, law abiding people, and that a safety course should be required. Also, waiting periods are a good idea.

You're assuming that the only use of a firearm is against another human being, and inside a building. And while I think safety courses are a good idea, they don't need to be mandatory. Finally, waiting periods aren't really needed with the NICS check (instant background check). The only reason I had to wait 15 days for my rifle (from NICS check and ATF form 4473, to the time I actually took possesion of my rifle) was due to the fact that I didn't have either a hunting license or pistol permit (dumb, out of date CT state law).

This is, you must realize, a type of gun control.

I didn't say I had a problem with all gun control (I happen to think that restricting convicted felons and mentally ill people from getting firearms is a good idea). I just have a problem with people that aren't familiar with firearms trying to tell me, a law abiding citizen, what I should or shouldn't be allowed to own.

Give me one good reason why, besides your kneejerk reaction that I'm immature because I refer to a video game (In my opinion, as valid as any other artistic medium) when talking about reality. I'm not saying GTA is reality.

I never said you're immature. I'm merely pointing out that some people may dismiss your arguments due to you thinking that reality works like GTA.

Yeah, I mention a fucking video game and that negates my voting rights. maybe if you paid attention to a damn thing I said elsewhere you would actually have a right to say shit about me.

Hey! Cursing! Always a debate winner.

I read what you posted and, whether I did or not, it has no bearing on my right to say anything I like about you.

That being said, your "points" were addressed elsewhere in the thread and I didn't feel like rehashing them, particularly whem you bring up a video game as supporting evidence for your argument.

I don't base my worldview on GTA, I used it to make a point.

Unless that point is how to make a video game that sells really well, then it's invalid.

GTA has as much gun-rights substance as it has on how to play the stock market.

If you think about it, GTA has a rather pro-gun control vibe to it. In the game, you walk into gun stores, load up on guns without restriction, and then go out and make mayhem.

GTA is a game. That's it.

I'm not trying to say that's reality, but are you trying to say it wouldn't ever happen if guns were totally unrestricted?

I don't have to "try" to say it, I'll flat out assert it as fact.

Arizona is like that. Arizona allows you to open carry as much as you like. Yet, no one goes around blasting away in pixelated mayhem

People do die because of guns, and that will never cahnge no matter how much restriction you ever put on guns.

No, they don't.

They die because some other person killed them. Not one of my dozen guns has ever killed anyone and, being inanimate, none of them are likely to.

It is easier for me to get a gun without going to a gun shop or getting a lisence as it is for me to do it the legal way.

OVer half of my guns were purchased without going to a gun shop. Not a single one of my guns requires a license.

And, I am in full compliance with the law.

"defending yourself from government"..:rolleyes: it's called an election....
An election requires the government's complicity. What if they stop complying?

Plus, the politicians and the government are not equivalent. The government includes the judiciary (which is most countries is not elected), plus all the bureaucrats who've been there for decades.

An election requires the government's complicity. What if they stop complying?

Plus, the politicians and the government are not equivalent. The government includes the judiciary (which is most countries is not elected), plus all the bureaucrats who've been there for decades.

and when has that ever happened?

if it did which is very remote(never IMO)we just refuse to pay our taxes and the entire system comes to a halt, no government has the means to cope with the entire citizenry refusing to comply.......

and when has that ever happened?

if it did which is very remote(never IMO)we just refuse to pay our taxes and the entire system comes to a halt, no government has the means to cope with the entire citizenry refusing to comply.......
And should both sides should cease to comply, but only one of them has the means to impose its will upon the other, who do you think wins that fight?

I find the implied argument that because it's part of the US consitution, it is therefore right a bit disturbing.

In the US, that's the way it is. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, overriding state constitutions and laws in case of conflict.

(Maybe we should start quoting the European Convention on Human Rights? It recognises more rights than the US consitution, though it's arguable whether or not they're just optional extras).

Do what you like in Europe, but ECHR doesn't apply to the US.

what kind of society do we want?

An armed society. To aid in the defense of the state and to aid in the defense of the individual.

In Europe (generally in the EU), we have, historically, more reason than most to mistrust our governments, but we don't "bear arms" just in case. This could be because of our welfare state, the strict restrictions on guns, or it could be cultural (maybe America links guns with the glory of the Wild West? Maybe that's too much of a sterotypical thing to say?) or a combination, but I think what we've done has worked very well for us.

The Old West may lend to the romance of keeping and bearing arms, but, recall that we had problems with England trying to remove firearms from us. The "shot heard round the world" was in response to the British marching in to disarm us by force.

So, we have experience in governments trying to disarm us and it sticks in the craw.

strange that so many Americans want guns partly because they don't trust their government, but they let laws pass so they can be put under more and more survalence.

Sometimes, we have idiots passing laws for us. But, what of Britain? Last I read, it is the most observed nation on the planet.

If Americans truely didn't trust their government, then why does it have the power of life and death over people (the death penalty) - isn't this an implied acceptance of a very deep and powerful trust that the government will do the right thing most, if not all of the time and that the system is, if not perfect, then close to being perfect?

Juries decide guilt, not the government.

England has less shootings than America.

England has immensely strict gun control.

America sells guns in the super market.

'Nuff said.

Not a single one of my guns requires a license.


And therein lies a major problem with firearms in America.

And therein lies a major problem with firearms in America.

How is that a problem?

England has less shootings than America.

England has immensely strict gun control.

America sells guns in the super market.

'Nuff said.

Really? Which super-markets? You mean some Wal-marts? Which still has to follow all the background checks and local/federal/state ordinances?

Yes. However you missed my main point.

England: Strict control and immensely few shootings.

America: Lax control and many, many shootings.

Let us now ignore the precipitous drop in death by firearm in the US.
Let us now ignore the increase in guns in the US.
Let us now ignore the increase in concealed carry guns in the US.
Let us now ignore the increase in population in the US.

If guns are more prevalent, and the population increases by 40%, and the number of firearm murders and firearm-related violent crimes drops 63%, isn't that a substantial decrease in the number of firearm murders/crimes per capita?

Yes.

All while there was a radical liberalization of gun laws and the right to carry?
All while there were more guns put on the street than at any time in history?

How do you explain the plummet?

Well, I would ask for your source, but I honestly don't care.

Is it, or is it not fact, that there is a direct corrolation between a lack of guns and a lack of shootings?

Not that I have a problem with Americans killing one another.

Well, I would ask for your source, but I honestly don't care.

Is it, or is it not fact, that there is a direct corrolation between a lack of guns and a lack of shootings?

Not that I have a problem with Americans killing one another.

It is not a fact.

See
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

and

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

More guns, less gun crime.

More guns on the street in legal owner's hands, less gun crime

Too bad for you.

I said shootings, not gun crime.

I said shootings, not gun crime.

It's also less shootings, less firearm murder, and less firearm violence.

Read the study.

Yes. However you missed my main point.

England: Strict control and immensely few shootings.

America: Lax control and many, many shootings.
That's so ridiculous. England has 1/5 of the population of America. Of course there are going to be fewer shootings.

Well, I would ask for your source, but I honestly don't care.

Is it, or is it not fact, that there is a direct corrolation between a lack of guns and a lack of shootings?

Not that I have a problem with Americans killing one another.

no guns = no shootings. That is obviously true. However, saying guns are illegal doesnt = no guns. Anybody who wants a gun can get one. And on your last statement, fuck you you worthless piece of shit. I'm done.

England has less shootings than America.

So?

England has immensely strict gun control.

You are subjects. We are citizens.

America sells guns in the super market.

Really?

Which one? Obviously, I've been shopping for my weapons in the wrong stores...

'Nuff said.

============================
Where Big Brother Watches and Talks to You

British Town Takes Security Cameras to Next Level

By NICK WATT
Middlesbrough, England, Sept. 29, 2006 — Britain stands guard with more than 4 million security cameras, or CCTVs, as they call them over here. That's one for every 14 people in the country. The British are among the most-watched people on earth.
============================
-- http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2508521&page=1

'Nuff said.

And therein lies a major problem with firearms in America.

How pithy.

Care to explain why?

Or, does it just sound too cool to require substantiation?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/pdf/litreviewfirearmdeaths.pdf

It's also less shootings, less firearm murder, and less firearm violence.

Read the study.

Just because the governemnt says crime is down doesn't actually mean that it isn't happening as much....not every criminal or crime is discovered and the Government can easily manipulate figures to show what it wants. Gun crime may be down but if crime on a whole is down, the percentage of crime involving firearms may have increased.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/pdf/litreviewfirearmdeaths.pdf

Excellent, thank you for posting this.

You are subjects. We are citizens.


Why are we subjects? We have a democratic country, as democratic as America's. At least have a knowledge of a country before you comment on it.

Yes. However you missed my main point.

England: Strict control and immensely few shootings.

America: Lax control and many, many shootings.

============================
Guns and stiff upper lips

If a total, nationwide ban on the possession of firearms is supposed to curb gun crime, then why is it that the English are increasingly the victims of gun-wielding criminals? According to a study released about a month ago and which formed the basis of a recent article in USA Today, the criminal use of firearms in the United Kingdom has increased by "almost 40 percent in three years, to 3,685 incidents from 2,648."
============================
-- Washington Times, 8/20/2001

Or, to use even more recent data, the criminal use of handguns in Britain increased 122% from 1997 to 2002.

-- http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-003.pdf
Page 9, Table 2

40% from 1997 to 2000, just three years. Tack on a mere two extra years and it rockets to 122%

To use a well reasoned quote in a more relevant fashion - 'Nuff said.

Why are we subjects? We have a democratic country, as democratic as America's. At least have a knowledge of a country before you comment on it.

Ah, I see. My data was old. Since 1981 - a whopping 25 years ago - you ceased being subjects.

Maybe there is how for your country after all.

Well, not while you are the most watched on the planet...

Ah, I see. My data was old. Since 1981 - a whopping 25 years ago - you ceased being subjects.

Maybe there is how for your country after all.

Well, not while you are the most watched on the planet...


we may be the most watched on the planet, but most of them are speed cameras and CCTV has lead to many criminals being caught and identified.

We have no problem with it really - maybe America should focus on why they , along with China, are causing more environmental damage than any other nation on Earth and why it seems to be decvlaring illegal wars and allying with regimes such as Israel who are committing war crime to the Palestinians. Britain may be flawed but at least we are not allowing our citizens to run around buying and using dangerous weapons. America should sort itself out before it attacks other nations.

We have no problem with it really

Of course not, because you have surrendered. The name may have changed, but the psyche is still there - subjects.

... and why it seems to be decvlaring illegal wars

Really? What "illegal war" have we decvlared?

and allying with regimes such as Israel who are committing war crime to the Palestinians.

GO ISRAEL!!

Britain may be flawed but at least we are not allowing our citizens to run around buying and using dangerous weapons.

Thus, your flaws.

America should sort itself out before it attacks other nations.

True. Next time Europe screws itself, we'll sit it out...

and allying with regimes such as Israel who are committing war crime to the Palestinians.
Such as...?

GO ISRAEL!!
Yeah! :cool:

True. Next time Europe screws itself, we'll sit it out...
Perhaps if we get involved again, we should demand that our help will cost their countries! They'll be provinces and we'll be rich from tribute! :p

The biggest difference between the USA and Canada

Actually, here's a difference between the USA and Canada that may do more to explain the different crime rates.

The Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development uses another relative measure of poverty. It takes all of the after-tax incomes in a particular country and finds the income such that half the people in the country make more and half make less. That's the median after-tax income. Anyone who makes less than half of that median income is considered poor. By that measure, Canada's poverty rate in 2000 was 10.3 per cent, close to the OECD average. In the U.S., the rate was 17.1 per cent, in Mexico it was 20.3 per cent and in Denmark, it was 4.3 per cent. Statistics Canada uses a similar calculation, called the Low Income Measures, which uses pre-tax incomes.

source (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/economy/poverty-line.html)

Although I really shouldn't be getting into this thread. It's already devolved into the Americans saying "We won WWII!1!1elevetyone!" and everyone else saying, "Amerikinz is teh dumb!1!11!"

Such is the inevitable fate of any gun control thread.

England has less shootings than America.

England has immensely strict gun control.

America sells guns in the super market.

'Nuff said.
============================
Guns and stiff upper lips

If a total, nationwide ban on the possession of firearms is supposed to curb gun crime, then why is it that the English are increasingly the victims of gun-wielding criminals? According to a study released about a month ago and which formed the basis of a recent article in USA Today, the criminal use of firearms in the United Kingdom has increased by "almost 40 percent in three years, to 3,685 incidents from 2,648."
============================
-- Washington Times, 8/20/2001

Or, to use even more recent data, the criminal use of handguns in Britain increased 122% from 1997 to 2002.

-- http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-003.pdf
Page 9, Table 2

40% from 1997 to 2000, just three years. Tack on a mere two extra years and it rockets to 122%

To use a well reasoned quote in a more relevant fashion - 'Nuff said.

When it comes to statistics, enough is never enough.

The following is not a thorough comparison, as the definitions used are somewhat different in United Britain (UK) and the United States (US). For example, in the statistics from the UK, firearms are taken to be involved in an incident if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person, or used in a threat. I'm uncertain if the definition used in the statistics from the US includes firearms used as blunt instruments.

Some numbers:

US: Percent of murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults in which firearms were used in 2001:
- Total number: 1,346,120 (2005: 1,296,761)
- Percentage: 26.4% (2005: 28.4%)
GB 2001: There were 9,974 recorded crimes in which firearms (excluding air weapons) were reportedly used. Firearms (including air weapons) were used in 0.4% of all recorded crimes, and in 0.18% of recorded crimes excluding air weapons.
- In 2005/06 there were a provisional 10,990 firearm offences recorded in England and Wales, an increase of less than one per cent since 2004/05.


US: Of 16,692 homicides in 2005, 68.0% involved the use of firearms.
GB: 11% of all homicides committed during 2001/02 involved the use of firearms.
- There were 46 homicides involving firearms in 2005/06.
- 6% of all homicides in 2005/06 involved firearms, but these firearms homicides accounted for only one per cent of all violence against the person offences involving firearms.


US: Of 862,947 incidents of aggravated assaults 21.0% involved the use of a firearm.
GB: Firearms were involved in 1,115 more serious incidents of violence against the person (other than homicide) in 2005/06, the same proportion (3%) as in 2004/05.


US: Of 417,122 robberies, 42.1% involved the use of firearms.
GB: There were 4,036 firearm robberies in 2005/06, a ten per cent increase from the previous year. Firearms were used in 4% of all robbery offences recorded by police.


The risk for being a victim of violence is on average 3,4% (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime0506summ.pdf) (see page 8) in the UK.
The risk for being a victim of violence is on average 2,2% in the US according to the DOJ (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0501.pdf).
NOTE: The definitions of "violent crime" differs.



What to make of all this? Dunno, but I guess 'nuff isn't said. :)

Sources:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206chap456.pdf
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-003.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#International_comparison

Actually, here's a difference between the USA and Canada that may do more to explain the different crime rates.
The OECD's definition of poverty is absurd, though. It doesn't describe who's poor. It describes who's below average. By that defintion it's not possible to have 0% poverty unless everyone earns exactly the same amount, even if everyone is perfectly comfortable.

Plus, there's the further confounding factor that there are vastly fewer people here. We're so underpopulated that we don't get on each other's nerves as much, and thus there's less violent crime. It's hard to shoot people when you live in an area with 1.9 people / sq.km.