I am glad...

Hi Florestan,

Thank you for a rational and reasonable response to Eloise.

In terms of how the regulation here is working out... well, in general quite well actually!    Crimes against the person are a lot lower that historical average (even allowing for a bit of an increase over the last year),  Fewer people are being damaged by "legal highs" since distribution of most of those substances has been controlled, and our homicide rate by guns and knives (both controlled) are remaining quite low.

The control of sugary drinks (economic control by taxation), is sadly necessary for those (unlike yourself) who are unable to find the motivation for self control within themselves.  And this isn't "Big Government" actually banning something, they're just biasing the market to apply a little 'free market' persuasion to people, to help them change their habits for the better.  Note that these habits of theirs also cost the rest of the population in higher taxes (something to which you not unreasonably object). Perhaps you may start to see this in a better light and come to the view that it actually fits well with your "laissez faire" philosophy.
-  Just a thought, maybe you could view it this way?

You, I and probably the vast majority on this forum were taught a great degree of self control, by our parents, by our education and by the environment in which we grew up.  But there are also a lot of people who don't have this level of self control.  Clearly we can't treat everyone as "law-abiding people who should have some rights too, such as just leave us alone?"; unfortunately the law has to be written the same way for everyone.  So there is the need for laws controlling driving under the influence of alcohol and using mobile phones - they are need to control the irresponsible people who will do this, and hence they also have to apply equally to those who would act responsibly.  I assume that you don't think that we should abandon these laws and if a few thousand or tens of thousands of pedestrians get killed by drunken drivers every year, well, then that's the price of freedom, to be able to drink and drive (and how would you feel if a drunk killed your wife / daughter / son?).  Would you also remove the similar restriction on pilots of aircraft, allowing them to fly when drunk - no, of course you wouldn't, you're a rational person.

Some laws to control people are necessary when the actions of an irresponsible minority threaten innocent people - this is one of the prices of freedom - the acceptance of a smaller degree of restriction from minor things for the majority, in order to prevent major problems being caused by an irresponsible minority.
Unfortunately, this is necessary.

What we are really arguing about here is which activities should be restricted to protect the greater majority, and to what extent should those restrictions be applied.

Lastly, yes sometimes men do need to be afraid of women, but far more often it's the other way round.  It's even more the case when it's 'just' intimidation rather than all out violence, men can actually come across as threatening without even realising or intending it.

Haim Ronen posted:

Few points:

* No civilian has any business owning powerful offensive military weapons. Aside of the possibility of conversion to bursts shooting, the velocity of this ammunition enables the bullets to penetrate bullet-proof vests and can hit targets hundreds yards away which have nothing to do with self-defense.

*The fact that 99.9% of military rifles owners are law abiding citizens does not matter since the only solution is to completely remove these deadly weapons from the marketplace by declaring them illegal.

* It is ironic that most gun owners who wave the flag of 'law & order' look the other way when all law enforcement agencies around the country are calling for banning assault weapons.

*There should be a limit to the number guns and amount of ammunition one can own. Perhaps a high annual taxation on ownership, just like we are paying for our car license plates, might help curb the urge of weapon hoarding .

* In our household it is all a matter of context. The same missus who was completely comfortable with a military automatic rifle brought home during reserve duty done in another country will not allow any firearm into our home in the US.

Haim, these are excellent points.  The difficult part for me is that I do not have the skills to explain myself as concisely as you do and why it has also been noted how it seems I am on both sides of this debate.  For example, I entirely agree with the logic and common sense approach of banning military and assault type weapons and stockpiling ammo and having an arsenal etc.  This we surely all agree on.

At the same time, I am uncomfortable to turn the other way and accept blanket statements like when someone insinuates (like at the start of this thread) that 'gun' owners are crazed lunatics with short tempers.  Sure, many of us do not understand it (myself included) but I also understand that making stereotypical judgements is not usually fair either.  

It is a hobby for some people I would suspect?  We all have hobbies and don't need others to brand us as being among the 'basketful of deplorables' just for having a hobby that others (even the majority) may not understand.

I understand that guns and knives and the like are certainly not entirely innocuous but where does opinion end and wisdom and respect for others begin?  I can tell you with certainty that someone who does not listen to music or enjoy music would look at me as some kind of nut.  Maybe true for most of us here who invest heavily in hardware and software.  If it were a matter to vote on I'm sure the majority of the people would say we are all nuts.  Do you find that trying to explain your passion to someone who would never get it anyway a pointless endeavour?  Nothing will change their view or contempt they have to you or your hobby or even values.

Setting a limit on guns again brings a similar argument.  How many is too many?  Knives?  I like a good quality kitchen knife and other kitchen tools.  Maybe their should be a limit on how many kitchen knives I can own in a big brother society (so I don't murder someone)?  How many photographs do you really need to take in a year?  Isn't a few 'shots' enough compared to thousands of shots with your semi-automatic?  I just see a slippery slope here (and I am not providing serious examples on purpose).  OK, guns is the target now but when will it stop and when it targets something you enjoy will you be happy to give up you freedom to choose what you like to do (because someone or many think you are a bad person along with the real bad people)? 

And again, to be clear, I do agree with a ban on military style weapons and controls on guns etc. I only speak up on the contrary because these types of ideas no longer really work.  With the number of guns available and an underground supply that I'm sure is endless I would maintain we are only making the experience of gun ownership painful for those who are not the problem.

Sure, we have laws for drunk driving and distracted driving laws (texting etc) but has that stopped or even reduced those that would do this the day before this law and the day after it was imposed?  Not in what I see everyday where I live.  Not getting caught is still not an award for success or check mark in the statistics reports either.  Reality is reality.

Huge posted:

Hi Florestan,

Thank you for a rational and reasonable response to Eloise.

In terms of how the regulation here is working out... well, in general quite well actually!    Crimes against the person are a lot lower that historical average (even allowing for a bit of an increase over the last year),  Fewer people are being damaged by "legal highs" since distribution of most of those substances has been controlled, and our homicide rate by guns and knives (both controlled) are remaining quite low.

The control of sugary drinks (economic control by taxation), is sadly necessary for those (unlike yourself) who are unable to find the motivation for self control within themselves.  And this isn't "Big Government" actually banning something, they're just biasing the market to apply a little 'free market' persuasion to people, to help them change their habits for the better.  Note that these habits of theirs also cost the rest of the population in higher taxes (something to which you not unreasonably object). Perhaps you may start to see this in a better light and come to the view that it actually fits well with your "laissez faire" philosophy.
-  Just a thought, maybe you could view it this way?

You, I and probably the vast majority on this forum were taught a great degree of self control, by our parents, by our education and by the environment in which we grew up.  But there are also a lot of people who don't have this level of self control.  Clearly we can't treat everyone as "law-abiding people who should have some rights too, such as just leave us alone?"; unfortunately the law has to be written the same way for everyone.  So there is the need for laws controlling driving under the influence of alcohol and using mobile phones - they are need to control the irresponsible people who will do this, and hence they also have to apply equally to those who would act responsibly.  I assume that you don't think that we should abandon these laws and if a few thousand or tens of thousands of pedestrians get killed by drunken drivers every year, well, then that's the price of freedom, to be able to drink and drive (and how would you feel if a drunk killed your wife / daughter / son?).  Would you also remove the similar restriction on pilots of aircraft, allowing them to fly when drunk - no, of course you wouldn't, you're a rational person.

Some laws to control people are necessary when the actions of an irresponsible minority threaten innocent people - this is one of the prices of freedom - the acceptance of a smaller degree of restriction from minor things for the majority, in order to prevent major problems being caused by an irresponsible minority.
Unfortunately, this is necessary.

What we are really arguing about here is which activities should be restricted to protect the greater majority, and to what extent should those restrictions be applied.

Lastly, yes sometimes men do need to be afraid of women, but far more often it's the other way round.  It's even more the case when it's 'just' intimidation rather than all out violence, men can actually come across as threatening without even realising or intending it.

Huge, a very nice and interesting response.  

I agree with everything you say including the need for some laws and controls - such as impaired driving etc.  We still only differ on my belief that these things generally do not disappear just because of a law on the books.  It may help but it never has solved most of our problems.  We may perceive it to be effective by either people continue doing what they want since the odds of getting caught are low (there is not enough police to enforce it anyway) or people find another way to do their evil act (instead of a semi-automatic gun they use a transport truck or a bomb etc.)

Your explanation of using economic control through taxation was very good.  

Those who want a cigarette or a sugary drink will probably get these things despite the penalty for doing so?  Maybe even by giving up something else?  If your reasoning for imposing a tax on sugary drinks or cigarettes is that it will save on medical costs to society down the road then answer me the following.

If you shop for your foods and tend to want to eat healthy, would you agree that it costs more or less to eat healthy than it does to eat processed, unhealthy foods?  Where I live, you will pay more to eat healthier, natural foods never mind adding the organic quality if you want to go there.  So you think a tax on a large size slurpy is going to change the level of the playing field.  No, I begrudgingly spend more on good food (like a tax or penalty) than someone who saves money by buying processed junk and slurpies and stuff full of sugar and salt (taxes included).  If governments were really genuinely trying to save on health care costs in the future, taxing large size slurpies is not really going to save the world.  Why not subsidize healthy, organic food instead and tilt the market so that you would have to pay more in a given day to eat anything processed and anything considered junk food?  It should not cost the most to eat the healthiest foods yet it does.  And currently, people on a budget cannot eat well since buying more vegetables and fruits costs more than many can afford.

All I am merely saying here and in previous posts is that somehow people are influenced by the shiny objects - the trend of the day.  Gun control - check.   Tax large size sugary drinks - check.  And the hypocrisy is endless.  The cost to impose these things is endless.  The results are uncertain at best especially because loopholes exist.

I have lived through the last many decades where you could clearly see the change in smoking laws.  In the seventies/eighties the smokers ruled.  You worked beside a smoker and had to fly on a plane with smokers.  So it is good in my opinion now that where you can smoke is somewhat restricted.  So we went through all this (with the health card played as the main reason for doing so) and now 'medical' marijuana is the latest and hottest role for a government to get in on the action.  I guess adding the 'medical' part in it is the shiny object.  Just like I have a shot of brandy morning and evening for medicinal purposes.  We live in strange times indeed.

Florestan, 

It seems to be pointless to respond in any rational way to your rambling and irrational posts, and so I had intended to bow out of this particular thread. However, there are so many contradictions, anomalies and hypocritical comments in each of your subsequent posts that I am continually drawn in to a response. In this respect, you win hands down.

You claim in some of your posts that you do not support the widespread proliferation of automatic and semi automatic assault weapons, and yet you criticize anyone who promotes the idea of any form of restriction on these very weapons, and to add insult to injury you label us as hypocritical. We are also somehow anti-American simply because our opinion is that control over the availability of assault weaponry is something to which all civilised societies should aspire. You equate the idea of gun control with that of a potential imposition of tax on sugary drinks and claim that those of us who support gun control are 'hypocritical' and 'pandering to a fad or trend. I really do despair.

You very obviously do not know much about life in the UK. Our attitude towards the tightening of gun control laws in the UK has never been under debate. Although I haven't seen a survey that would prove this, I suspect that the number of people in the UK who would support the relaxation of gun control laws, or indeed that of offensive knives or other weaponry of any sort, would be significantly less than 1% of the population. We do not consider gun control to be a trend. The absence of large numbers of guns within the general population of the UK is a way of life for us, and something that appears to be very much a matter of common sense. Could someone walk up behind me and hit me over the head  with a cricket bat? Of course they could, but I'm comfortable to take my chances with this possibility. I am also very happy not to be faced with the option and dilemma of my killing someone who might break into my house were I to own a gun. I also feel comfortable in the knowledge that if someone were to break into my home, the chances are that they would not be equipped with a gun either, and so the possibility of my being killed is also diminished. However, this strays in to the question of the right of a citizen to bear arms of any sort, and this is really not what is being debated in this thread.      

I will repeat a couple of questions I have asked before, but that you have never answered.

1. Would you prefer that ownership of automatic and semi-automatic assault weaponry was less widespread than is the case in the US?

2. Do you think it is a good idea for the sale of (potentially) automatic and semi-automatic assault weaponry to be allowed to continue unabated in the US legally and with little or no control.

The debate in this thread can be confined to these two simple questions. Anything else is simply an irrelevance and a diversion (intentional or otherwise).

Hmack posted:

Florestan, 

I will repeat a couple of questions I have asked before, but that you have never answered.

1. Would you prefer that ownership of automatic and semi-automatic assault weaponry was less widespread than is the case in the US?

2. Do you think it is a good idea for the sale of (potentially) automatic and semi-automatic assault weaponry to be allowed to continue unabated in the US legally and with little or no control.

The debate in this thread can be confined to these two simple questions. Anything else is simply an irrelevance and a diversion (intentional or otherwise).

Hmack,

Do you bother to read before posting? This was Florestan's very clear response to my post:

"Haim, these are excellent points.  The difficult part for me is that I do not have the skills to explain myself as concisely as you do and why it has also been noted how it seems I am on both sides of this debate.  For example, I entirely agree with the logic and common sense approach of banning military and assault type weapons and stockpiling ammo and having an arsenal etc.  This we surely all agree on."

It is a hobby for some people I would suspect?  We all have hobbies and don't need others to brand us as being among the 'basketful of deplorables' just for having a hobby that others (even the majority) may not understand.

Haim Ronen posted:

Hmack posted:

Florestan, 

I will repeat a couple of questions I have asked before, but that you have never answered.

1. Would you prefer that ownership of automatic and semi-automatic assault weaponry was less widespread than is the case in the US?

2. Do you think it is a good idea for the sale of (potentially) automatic and semi-automatic assault weaponry to be allowed to continue unabated in the US legally and with little or no control.

The debate in this thread can be confined to these two simple questions. Anything else is simply an irrelevance and a diversion (intentional or otherwise).

Hmack,

Do you bother to read before posting? This was Florestan's very clear response to my post:

"Haim, these are excellent points.  The difficult part for me is that I do not have the skills to explain myself as concisely as you do and why it has also been noted how it seems I am on both sides of this debate.  For example, I entirely agree with the logic and common sense approach of banning military and assault type weapons and stockpiling ammo and having an arsenal etc.  This we surely all agree on."

 

I do read most posts on this thread before responding, but you are correct. I hadn't read the last two posts by Florestan in response to posts by yourself and Huge prior to my own post, and so I am happy to apologise to Florestan for this. By the way, I also think that the suggestions you made in your own post, and to which Florestan was responding, are excellent in the context of the current state of affairs in the US in respect of gun control.   

However, if you were to re-read my last post you will see that the point I was trying to make was that the issue under discussion on this thread is very straightforward. One either accepts that gun control laws should be tightened or one doesn't. This thread opened with a very simple premise that it would be a good idea for the US to tighten up gun control within its borders. Florestan's immediate reaction was to attack the integrity of those who advocated gun control and brand them as Anti-American hypocrites. His recent posts equating gun control with the taxing of sugary drinks, or the imposition of bans on drink driving and texting whilst driving are ridiculous diversions. I would also suggest that very few sensible people would support the relaxation of laws relating to the extremely dangerous practices of drink driving and texting whilst driving. Florestan's antipathy to these controls appears to stem from his dislike of 'Big Government' generally. 

Here are a few quotes from Florestan which suggest that his view on "Government interference in the lives of common people" are pretty rigid, and that his desire to ban assault type weapons is a little shaky at best:   

....So why do we have to have a government tax sugary drinks to try to reduce the number of people from buying this?  Or to put on a seatbelt?  Or to not text while driving?  Or not to drink and drive etc.

I have seen it in Canada in the past where the Liberals decided gun control was the answer.  Well it was a make work project, profiting bureaucrats and greedy consulting and IT company's only who raked in 100's of millions and we get nothing out of it.  Do we really need to spend 100's of millions to round up farmers, ranchers and hunters? Yet, nothing changed for the criminals as they are not affected by laws. The result is a complete and utter failure. Compare the outcome of doing nothing to spending 100's of millions of dollars?  Hard to argue that we benefitted in any meaningful way.

Same with the 2nd amendment debate.  Not that I like it but I think it is better to deal with a small number of problems than to take the view that complete control by the government is the answer.  It seems clear to me that gun control typically only is directed at the very people who do not need it to begin with. Thus, why I suggest other methods for dealing with it (and the evil nature of man).

....So what would gun control do when a gun is not used for a mass attack?  - Well, I do agree that gun control wouldn't stop someone from hitting me over the head with a baseball bat or driving a vehicle at me to run me down. But then, that isn't really relevant to this debate, is it?

Gun ownership is not, of course, sufficient to bring about a mass shooting.  It is, however, necessary - and so the fewer guns are owned then, ipso facto, the fewer shootings there will be.

According to an earlier post showing a chart to murder rates, the USA has approximately 5 times the murder rate of the UK... The number of shootings and murders in the USA and some other countries is horrific.
I really struggle to understand why there can possibly be resistance in the USA to tighter gun controls.
As has been posted previously, machine guns are for the armed forces, surely NEVER for civilian use?
The people who said the right to bear arms would be turning in their graves if they knew what was happening these days!

What surprises me is how easy it is to obtain a gun in the US.  If its just for a 'hobby' the applicant should go through an in depth application so that all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted.  If access to guns was limited in the US  like in UK I bet my savings that gun crime would decrease in the first year.

Florestan,

Like others, I have difficulty in following your general lines of reasoning. Also, I don’t recognise the UK from your descriptions.

I have lived and worked in a diverse range of countries and cultures including North America, Scandinavia, Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent. I have experienced a wide range of cultures and societies and listened to an even wider range of views as to how people would like societies to be organised and behave. Your proposals appear to be as close to anarchy as any I have encountered. Anarchy is not the sort of society in which I would wish to live.

Rather than anarchy, I would prefer to live in a society with a clear moral code of conduct, designed to provide a safe, enjoyable and fulfilling life for the vast majority (if not, all) of its people. The moral code of conduct would incorporate rules that need to be complied with, be enforced and include punishment/re-education for wilful non-compliance. This is an over-simplification, but you hopefully get my drift ?

Who sets out the moral code, rules and punishment etc is of course, a big question.

Here in the UK, it has developed over a fair number of centuries and continues to evolve today. The USA and many ex-colonial countries started with the benefit of hindsight of various European (not EU) rules and they continue to evolve today. Most of these rules have been set by governments who were implementing the wishes of their electorate via a representative democratic process. It’s not perfect and the outcomes vary from country to country and from time to time. But it works reasonably well, at least IMHO.

ISIS, the Taliban, Saudi, and quite few Middle East countries and others, have rules developed by a few, and imposed on the many, quite often in a draconian way. Some of us in “The West” consider these codes of conduct and rules don’t provide a safe, enjoyable and fulfilling life for the vast majority of their people and we attempt to change things, usually by discussion, but sometimes by force.

One thing that I have been aware of these past 50 years, is that regardless of the moral codes or the rules or the punishment, some members of all societies behave badly ie they hurt or take advantage of their fellow people. In short, they commit crimes. Protest, particularly peaceful protest, is different IMHO but I’m obviously over-simplifying everything big-time !

Here in the UK we don’t have major gun crime. We don’t ban people from owning or using guns, but we do control their availability and use. I consider this control and low crime rate are related. Society here appears to be content with the moral code and rules concerning guns.

Some of us, myself included, consider that the USA could dramatically reduce its gun crime if it introduced UK style gun control and rules. I accept that knife crime (and other forms of violence) might rise as a consequence, but my prediction is that it will be significantly less harmful to your wider society and could itself be reduced by related rules and enforcement. This will only happen in a democratic society such as the USA, if the vast majority (say about 85%) of the electorate want it. At the moment, I don’t see 85% of the population wanting this change.

So in that respect, your wish for freedom for guns, will be satisfied in the USA and you and your fellow citizens have my sympathy.

We have witnessed in the UK the horror which can ensue when seriously disturbed individuals are able to lay their hands upon firearms and ammunition (Hungerford and Dunblane spring to mind). God forbid that such people should have the free and easy access to firearms enjoyed by USA citizens. I don't think for one moment the US has a higher proportion of psychotic, sociopathic or otherwise damaged individuals than the UK. The difference, giving rise to the much, much higher incidence of such tragedies, can only be their access to firearms. If that's too simplistic an argument for the likes of Florestan let's just agree to disagree. The circular 'debate' I witness above (and I think I'm being charitable with that description) really does seem to be going nowhere, and has run its course.

Don,

I would imagine that yourself and others have preconceived ideas and have not really read carefully or understood what I have said.

Rather than me re-iterate what you choose not to understand let's challenge your (and the group you speak for here that are apparently having difficulty understanding) false assumptions.

More guns = more crime - Prove it

More guns = more murders - Prove it

I know you and others want so badly and so desperately to believe that guns are the absolute central issue and I believe you all are sadly mistaken.  As I have so plainly stated, removing guns from society will change nothing really in regards to crime and in regards to murders.  Please re-read some of what I wrote previously maybe starting with my assertion that the break-down of the family unit is more highly correlated to the issues of crime and murder (gun related or not).  All you and others are assuming is that it is guns that are the issue.  

And then you are going to bring up morals to me?  Incredible really.

Rather than just say that the UK is the perfect little island now that guns are controlled please show me proof in regards to the two assertions above.

Will the NIH study entitled "The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010" suffice?

...Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides....

Country / Gun availability / Intentional Homicide rate

Jamaica / High / 43.2
USA / High / 4.88
Canada / Medium / 1.68
Australia / Low / 0.98
UK / Low / 0.92
New Zealand / Low / 0.91
Ireland (Eire) / Low / 0.64

Only English speaking countries shown, to reduce historical cultural related factors.
Statistics from UNODC.

Friends

Doing a quick internet search, I found that firearms related death per 100,000 in Great Britain is 0.23. Here in the U.S the comparable number is 10.54. Countries having a higher rate than the U.S are:

Uruguay

Swaziland

Panama

Jamaica

Honduras

Guatamala

El Salvador

Columbia

Brazil

Florestan posted:

Don,

I would imagine that yourself and others have preconceived ideas and have not really read carefully or understood what I have said.

Rather than me re-iterate what you choose not to understand let's challenge your (and the group you speak for here that are apparently having difficulty understanding) false assumptions.

More guns = more crime - Prove it

More guns = more murders - Prove it

I know you and others want so badly and so desperately to believe that guns are the absolute central issue and I believe you all are sadly mistaken.  As I have so plainly stated, removing guns from society will change nothing really in regards to crime and in regards to murders.  Please re-read some of what I wrote previously maybe starting with my assertion that the break-down of the family unit is more highly correlated to the issues of crime and murder (gun related or not).  All you and others are assuming is that it is guns that are the issue.  

And then you are going to bring up morals to me?  Incredible really.

Rather than just say that the UK is the perfect little island now that guns are controlled please show me proof in regards to the two assertions above.

Florestan,

Please read my post more carefully. I referred to gun related crime. Gun related crime in the USA is an order of magnitude greater than in the UK. For gun related crime please read gun related homicide since that is what this thread is all about.

I also stated, quite clearly, that if gun ownership was reduced, knife crime (and homicides) might increase.

As for more guns = more crime etc take a look at wikipedia

UK = 0.9 homicides per 100,000 = tight gun control

Canada = 1.6 homicides per 100,000 = moderate gun control

USA = 4.9 homicides per 100,000 = light gun control

From the posts in this thread, I don't see anybody desperate to believe guns are the root cause of crime and homicide. They just make crime and homicide easier and more prolific.

For those noticing differing numbers per 100,000, my numbers above include suicides and accidental deaths. If I recall correctly, roughly 2/3 of the U.S total yearly gun deaths (roughly 33,000) are suicides.  The remainder are overwhelmingly homicides although accidental deaths, mostly involving children accessing a parent's gun, are not uncommon. A further 73,000 or so non-fatal gun injuries occur.

Ah ! Clay,

The figures I quoted are homicides per 100,000 population. These are ALL homicides, not just gun related homicides, although they do include gun related homicides.

I have also read that of the USA's c.33000 gun related deaths per year, about 2/3 are suicides (and accidents), leaving about 11,000 homicides.

Don Atkinson posted:

Florestan posted:

Don,

I would imagine that yourself and others have preconceived ideas and have not really read carefully or understood what I have said.

Rather than me re-iterate what you choose not to understand let's challenge your (and the group you speak for here that are apparently having difficulty understanding) false assumptions.

More guns = more crime - Prove it

More guns = more murders - Prove it

I know you and others want so badly and so desperately to believe that guns are the absolute central issue and I believe you all are sadly mistaken.  As I have so plainly stated, removing guns from society will change nothing really in regards to crime and in regards to murders.  Please re-read some of what I wrote previously maybe starting with my assertion that the break-down of the family unit is more highly correlated to the issues of crime and murder (gun related or not).  All you and others are assuming is that it is guns that are the issue.  

And then you are going to bring up morals to me?  Incredible really.

Rather than just say that the UK is the perfect little island now that guns are controlled please show me proof in regards to the two assertions above.

Florestan,

Please read my post more carefully. I referred to gun related crime. Gun related crime in the USA is an order of magnitude greater than in the UK. For gun related crime please read gun related homicide since that is what this thread is all about.

I also stated, quite clearly, that if gun ownership was reduced, knife crime (and homicides) might increase.

As for more guns = more crime etc take a look at wikipedia

UK = 0.9 homicides per 100,000 = tight gun control

Canada = 1.6 homicides per 100,000 = moderate gun control

USA = 4.9 homicides per 100,000 = light gun control

From the posts in this thread, I don't see anybody desperate to believe guns are the root cause of crime and homicide. They just make crime and homicide easier and more prolific.

 

Don, so your comparison of three countries proves what?  More guns in the US means more homicides?

Seems reasonable until you actually look at the Gun Ownership Rate and compare it to the Homicide Rate.  Later, I will show you what is wrong with the UK numbers but for now I would question you why at least 30% of the residents of Austria, Norway, Germany and Iceland own guns (compared to a 6.6% UK rate) and these other countries actually have a lower homicide rate?  This is a huge difference in terms of gun ownership or as you put it - tight vs. light gun control.

On the flip side I can look at a country like Ukraine which has a 6.6% ownership rate (same as the UK) but has a similar homicide rate of 4.36 to the US rate of 4.88.  US gun ownership rate though is the highest in the world at 112%.  Tunisia has virtually no gun ownership but a 3.05 homicide rate.  And how about those Serbians?  Aren't they awesome in that more than 58% percent of households own guns yet the homicide rate is only marginally greater than that of the UK.

Would this not suggest that guns actually do not kill people, but people kill people?  You also mistakenly seem to imply that owning a gun is akin to 'using' it to kill someone.  That's a giant leap, isn't it?  Again, time permitting, in a different post I will explain to you why this assumption is wrong and the facts lead to a different conclusion supporting what I have said here all along.

I have created two tables that shows a very strong negative correlation between the Gun Ownership Rate (per 100 residents) and Homicide Rate (per 100,000 inhabitants).  It is clear that some of the highest homicide rates correspond to some of the lowest gun ownership rates which pretty much is contrary to what you suggested.  The first table is sorted for gun ownership and the second table for homicides and the same countries are presented in each.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...er_capita_by_country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tional_homicide_rate

So this is my point #1.  The evidence seems to contradict your posit that more guns = more gun crime (homicides).  More on this later but I will ask you first if you still believe that the more guns owned per 100 residents leads directly to more gun crime?

Myth: Countries with strict gun control have less crime

Fact: In America, we can demonstrate that private ownership of guns reduces crime, but from country to country there is no correlation between gun availability and the violent crime rate. 

Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates. ¹

Fact: According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America. ²

Fact: “… the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.” ³

Fact: Even if we examine just firearm ownership and firearm homicide by country, we see no correlation between the two. ⁴

Fact: Switzerland has relatively lenient gun control for Europe ⁵, and has the third-lowest homicide rate of the top nine major European countries, and the same per capita rate as England and Wales, where restrictions are much tighter. ⁶

Fact: Indeed, the Swiss basically have a military rifle in nearly every closest. “Everybody who has served in the army is allowed to keep their personal weapon, even after the end of their military service.” ⁷

Fact: “We don’t have as many guns [in Brazil] as the United States, but we use them more.” ⁸ Brazil has mandatory licensing, registration, and maximum personal ownership quotas. It now bans any new sales to private citizens. Their homicide rate is almost three (3) times higher than the U.S. ⁹

Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase.¹⁰ In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000). ¹¹

Fact: One study of Canadian firearm law and homicide rates spanning 34 years “failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates” for three major gun control bills. ¹²

Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries. ¹³

Fact: The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian Prairie Provinces than in the northern US states across the border. ¹⁴

Fact: Strict controls over existing arms failed in Finland. Despite needs-based licensing, storage laws and transportation restrictions, ¹⁵ Finland experienced a multiple killing school shooting in 2007. ¹⁶

Myth: Britain has strict gun control and thus a low crime rate

Fact: The United Kingdom has always had a lower homicide rate than the United States, even when British citizens could legally buy machine guns (Briton’s modern era of gun control did not ramp up until the 1960s). The difference is cultural, not legal.

Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen.

Fact: Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. ¹⁷

Fact: Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population). ¹⁸

Fact: 67% of British residents surveyed believed that “As a result of gun and knife crime [rising], the area I live in is not as safe as it was five years ago.” ¹⁹

Fact: U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes were up 14%. ²⁰

Fact: This trend continued in the U.K in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

Fact: In 1919, before it had any gun control, the U.K. had a homicide rate that was 8% of the U.S. rate. By 1986, and after enacting significant gun control, the rate was 9% – practically unchanged. ²¹

Fact: “… [There is] nothing in the statistics for England and Wales to suggest that either the stricter controls on handguns prior to 1997 or the ban imposed since have controlled access to such firearms by criminals.” ²²

Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. ²³ To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. ²⁴

Fact: An ongoing parliamentary inquiry in Britain into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation – double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago – and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of 25 possesses or has access to a firearm. ²⁵

Fact: Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries. ²⁶

Fact: Handguns were used in 3,685 British offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%. ²⁷ It is interesting to note:

• Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of “gun crime.”
• Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.

Fact: Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years – nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms – in a country that has virtually banned private firearm ownership. ²⁸

Fact: Over the last century, the British crime rate was largely unchanged. In the late nineteenth century, the per capita homicide rate in Britain was between 1.0 and 1.5 per 100,000. ²⁹ In the late twentieth century, after a near ban on gun ownership, the homicide rate is around 1.4. ³⁰ This implies that the homicide rate did not vary with either the level of gun control or gun availability.

Fact: The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) and has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. To date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland. ³¹

Fact: “… the scale of gun crime in the capital [London] has forced senior officers to set up a specialist unit to deal with … shootings.” ³²

Myth: Gun control in Australia is curbing crime

Fact: Homicides were falling before the Australian firearm ban. In the seven years before and after the Australian ban, the rate of decline was identical (down to four decimal places). Homicides dropped steeply starting in 2003, but all of this decline was associated with non-firearm and non-knife murders (fewer beatings, poisonings, drownings, etc.). ³³

Fact: Crime has been rising since enacting a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after the ban, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. ³⁴ In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. ³⁵

From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:

• Firearm-related murders were up 19%
• Armed robberies were up 69%
• Home invasions were up 21%

The sad part is that in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation:

• Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%
• Firearm-related deaths fell 50%

Fact: Gun crimes have been rising throughout Australia since guns were banned. In Sydney alone, robbery rates with guns rose 160% in 2001, more than in the previous year. ³⁶

Fact: A ten-year Australian study has concluded that firearm confiscation had no effect on crime rates. ³⁷ A separate report also concluded that Australia’s 1996 gun control laws “found [no] evidence for an impact of the laws on the pre-existing decline in firearm homicides” ³⁸ and yet another report from Australia for a similar time period indicates the same lack of decline in firearm homicides. ³⁹

Fact: Despite having much stricter gun control than New Zealand (including a near ban on handguns) firearm homicides in both countries track one another over 25 years, indicating that gun control is not a control variable. ⁴⁰

Myth: The United States has the highest violence rate because of lax gun control

Fact: The top 100 countries for homicide do not include the U.S. ⁴⁴The top ten countries all have near or total firearm bans.

Myth: The U.S. has the highest rate of firearm deaths among 25 high-income countries

Fact: 60% of American “gun deaths” are suicides ⁴⁵ and the U.S. has a suicide rate 11% higher ⁴⁶ than international averages. This accounts for most of the difference.

Fact: The U.S. has a violent crime rate lower than 12 of 17 industrialized countries ⁴⁷ due in large part to the 2.5 million annual defence gun uses. ⁴⁸

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...-in-other-countries/

 Don, here is point #2.  The most damning point in the above is to find out that Britain tends to doctor the books a little with crime / homicide statistics.  This seems to fall in line with the general attitude that nothing is ever wrong on the island.  After all, it is only in America where you find gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers apparently.

Florestan posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Florestan posted:

Don,

I would imagine that yourself and others have preconceived ideas and have not really read carefully or understood what I have said.

Rather than me re-iterate what you choose not to understand let's challenge your (and the group you speak for here that are apparently having difficulty understanding) false assumptions.

More guns = more crime - Prove it

More guns = more murders - Prove it

I know you and others want so badly and so desperately to believe that guns are the absolute central issue and I believe you all are sadly mistaken.  As I have so plainly stated, removing guns from society will change nothing really in regards to crime and in regards to murders.  Please re-read some of what I wrote previously maybe starting with my assertion that the break-down of the family unit is more highly correlated to the issues of crime and murder (gun related or not).  All you and others are assuming is that it is guns that are the issue.  

And then you are going to bring up morals to me?  Incredible really.

Rather than just say that the UK is the perfect little island now that guns are controlled please show me proof in regards to the two assertions above.

Florestan,

Please read my post more carefully. I referred to gun related crime. Gun related crime in the USA is an order of magnitude greater than in the UK. For gun related crime please read gun related homicide since that is what this thread is all about.

I also stated, quite clearly, that if gun ownership was reduced, knife crime (and homicides) might increase.

As for more guns = more crime etc take a look at wikipedia

UK = 0.9 homicides per 100,000 = tight gun control

Canada = 1.6 homicides per 100,000 = moderate gun control

USA = 4.9 homicides per 100,000 = light gun control

From the posts in this thread, I don't see anybody desperate to believe guns are the root cause of crime and homicide. They just make crime and homicide easier and more prolific.

 

Don, so your comparison of three countries proves what?  More guns in the US means more homicides?

Seems reasonable until you actually look at the Gun Ownership Rate and compare it to the Homicide Rate.  Later, I will show you what is wrong with the UK numbers but for now I would question you why at least 30% of the residents of Austria, Norway, Germany and Iceland own guns (compared to a 6.6% UK rate) and these other countries actually have a lower homicide rate?  This is a huge difference in terms of gun ownership or as you put it - tight vs. light gun control.

On the flip side I can look at a country like Ukraine which has a 6.6% ownership rate (same as the UK) but has a similar homicide rate of 4.36 to the US rate of 4.88.  US gun ownership rate though is the highest in the world at 112%.  Tunisia has virtually no gun ownership but a 3.05 homicide rate.  And how about those Serbians?  Aren't they awesome in that more than 58% percent of households own guns yet the homicide rate is only marginally greater than that of the UK.

Would this not suggest that guns actually do not kill people, but people kill people?  You also mistakenly seem to imply that owning a gun is akin to 'using' it to kill someone.  That's a giant leap, isn't it?  Again, time permitting, in a different post I will explain to you why this assumption is wrong and the facts lead to a different conclusion supporting what I have said here all along.

I have created two tables that shows a very strong negative correlation between the Gun Ownership Rate (per 100 residents) and Homicide Rate (per 100,000 inhabitants).  It is clear that some of the highest homicide rates correspond to some of the lowest gun ownership rates which pretty much is contrary to what you suggested.  The first table is sorted for gun ownership and the second table for homicides and the same countries are presented in each.

Country	Gun Ownership Rate (per 100 Residents)	Homicide Rate (per 100,000 Inhabitants)
Tunisia	0.1	3.05
Ethiopia	0.4	7.6
North Korea	0.6	4.41
Lithuania	0.7	5.98
Lesotho	2.7	38
Bahamas	5.3	29.81
El Salvador	5.8	108.64
Columbia	5.9	26.5
Honduras	6.2	63.75
United Kingdom	6.6	0.92
Ukraine	6.6	4.36
Brazil	8	26.74
Jamaica	8.1	43.21
Russia	8.9	11.31
Belize	10	34.4
Venezuela	10.7	57.15
South Africa	12.7	34.27
Guatemala	13.1	31.21
Germany	30.3	0.85
Iceland	30.3	0.91
Austria	30.4	0.51
Canada	30.8	1.68
France	31.2	1.58
Norway	31.3	0.56
Uruguay	31.8	8.42
Finland	34.2	1.6
Iraq	34.2	8
Saudi Arabia	35	1.5
Cyprus	36.4	1.29
Yemen	54.8	6.67
Serbia	58.21	1.13
United States	112	4.88

 

Country	Gun Ownership Rate (per 100 Residents)	Homicide Rate (per 100,000 Inhabitants)
Austria	30.4	0.51
Norway	31.3	0.56
Germany	30.3	0.85
Iceland	30.3	0.91
United Kingdom	6.6	0.92
Serbia	58.21	1.13
Cyprus	36.4	1.29
Saudi Arabia	35	1.5
France	31.2	1.58
Finland	34.2	1.6
Canada	30.8	1.68
Tunisia	0.1	3.05
Ukraine	6.6	4.36
North Korea	0.6	4.41
United States	112	4.88
Lithuania	0.7	5.98
Yemen	54.8	6.67
Ethiopia	0.4	7.6
Iraq	34.2	8
Uruguay	31.8	8.42
Russia	8.9	11.31
Columbia	5.9	26.5
Brazil	8	26.74
Bahamas	5.3	29.81
Guatemala	13.1	31.21
South Africa	12.7	34.27
Belize	10	34.4
Lesotho	2.7	38
Jamaica	8.1	43.21
Venezuela	10.7	57.15
Honduras	6.2	63.75
El Salvador	5.8	108.64

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...er_capita_by_country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tional_homicide_rate

So this is my point #1.  The evidence seems to contradict your posit that more guns = more gun crime (homicides).  More on this later but I will ask you first if you still believe that the more guns owned per 100 residents leads directly to more gun crime?

 

Your grasp of statistics is pathetic.

winkyincanada posted:

Your grasp of statistics is pathetic.

Well said.

Why do people own guns?

I think that a very large amount of people in the USA own guns so that they can shoot people. 

I do not think that this is true in European countries.

winkyincanada posted:

Your grasp of statistics is pathetic.

As is your use of the term statistics. A table displaying rates or percentages is not a statistic, simply a comparison. Without knowing the sample sizes and variances within each group no statistical measures or inferences can be made.

Florestan posted:

Myth: Countries with strict gun control have less crime

Fact: In America, we can demonstrate that private ownership of guns reduces crime, but from country to country there is no correlation between gun availability and the violent crime rate. 

Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates. ¹

Fact: According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America. ²

Fact: “… the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.” ³

Fact: Even if we examine just firearm ownership and firearm homicide by country, we see no correlation between the two. ⁴

Fact: Switzerland has relatively lenient gun control for Europe ⁵, and has the third-lowest homicide rate of the top nine major European countries, and the same per capita rate as England and Wales, where restrictions are much tighter. ⁶

Fact: Indeed, the Swiss basically have a military rifle in nearly every closest. “Everybody who has served in the army is allowed to keep their personal weapon, even after the end of their military service.” ⁷

Fact: “We don’t have as many guns [in Brazil] as the United States, but we use them more.” ⁸ Brazil has mandatory licensing, registration, and maximum personal ownership quotas. It now bans any new sales to private citizens. Their homicide rate is almost three (3) times higher than the U.S. ⁹

Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase.¹⁰ In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000). ¹¹

Fact: One study of Canadian firearm law and homicide rates spanning 34 years “failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates” for three major gun control bills. ¹²

Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries. ¹³

Fact: The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian Prairie Provinces than in the northern US states across the border. ¹⁴

Fact: Strict controls over existing arms failed in Finland. Despite needs-based licensing, storage laws and transportation restrictions, ¹⁵ Finland experienced a multiple killing school shooting in 2007. ¹⁶

Myth: Britain has strict gun control and thus a low crime rate

Fact: The United Kingdom has always had a lower homicide rate than the United States, even when British citizens could legally buy machine guns (Briton’s modern era of gun control did not ramp up until the 1960s). The difference is cultural, not legal.

Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen.

Fact: Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. ¹⁷

Fact: Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population). ¹⁸

Fact: 67% of British residents surveyed believed that “As a result of gun and knife crime [rising], the area I live in is not as safe as it was five years ago.” ¹⁹

Fact: U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes were up 14%. ²⁰

Fact: This trend continued in the U.K in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

Fact: In 1919, before it had any gun control, the U.K. had a homicide rate that was 8% of the U.S. rate. By 1986, and after enacting significant gun control, the rate was 9% – practically unchanged. ²¹

Fact: “… [There is] nothing in the statistics for England and Wales to suggest that either the stricter controls on handguns prior to 1997 or the ban imposed since have controlled access to such firearms by criminals.” ²²

Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. ²³ To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. ²⁴

Fact: An ongoing parliamentary inquiry in Britain into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation – double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago – and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of 25 possesses or has access to a firearm. ²⁵

Fact: Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries. ²⁶

Fact: Handguns were used in 3,685 British offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%. ²⁷ It is interesting to note:

• Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of “gun crime.”
• Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.

Fact: Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years – nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms – in a country that has virtually banned private firearm ownership. ²⁸

Fact: Over the last century, the British crime rate was largely unchanged. In the late nineteenth century, the per capita homicide rate in Britain was between 1.0 and 1.5 per 100,000. ²⁹ In the late twentieth century, after a near ban on gun ownership, the homicide rate is around 1.4. ³⁰ This implies that the homicide rate did not vary with either the level of gun control or gun availability.

Fact: The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) and has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. To date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland. ³¹

Fact: “… the scale of gun crime in the capital [London] has forced senior officers to set up a specialist unit to deal with … shootings.” ³²

Myth: Gun control in Australia is curbing crime

Fact: Homicides were falling before the Australian firearm ban. In the seven years before and after the Australian ban, the rate of decline was identical (down to four decimal places). Homicides dropped steeply starting in 2003, but all of this decline was associated with non-firearm and non-knife murders (fewer beatings, poisonings, drownings, etc.). ³³

Fact: Crime has been rising since enacting a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after the ban, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. ³⁴ In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. ³⁵

From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:

• Firearm-related murders were up 19%
• Armed robberies were up 69%
• Home invasions were up 21%

The sad part is that in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation:

• Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%
• Firearm-related deaths fell 50%

Fact: Gun crimes have been rising throughout Australia since guns were banned. In Sydney alone, robbery rates with guns rose 160% in 2001, more than in the previous year. ³⁶

Fact: A ten-year Australian study has concluded that firearm confiscation had no effect on crime rates. ³⁷ A separate report also concluded that Australia’s 1996 gun control laws “found [no] evidence for an impact of the laws on the pre-existing decline in firearm homicides” ³⁸ and yet another report from Australia for a similar time period indicates the same lack of decline in firearm homicides. ³⁹

Fact: Despite having much stricter gun control than New Zealand (including a near ban on handguns) firearm homicides in both countries track one another over 25 years, indicating that gun control is not a control variable. ⁴⁰

Myth: The United States has the highest violence rate because of lax gun control

Fact: The top 100 countries for homicide do not include the U.S. ⁴⁴The top ten countries all have near or total firearm bans.

Myth: The U.S. has the highest rate of firearm deaths among 25 high-income countries

Fact: 60% of American “gun deaths” are suicides ⁴⁵ and the U.S. has a suicide rate 11% higher ⁴⁶ than international averages. This accounts for most of the difference.

Fact: The U.S. has a violent crime rate lower than 12 of 17 industrialized countries ⁴⁷ due in large part to the 2.5 million annual defence gun uses. ⁴⁸

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...-in-other-countries/

 Don, here is point #2.  The most damning point in the above is to find out that Britain tends to doctor the books a little with crime / homicide statistics.  This seems to fall in line with the general attitude that nothing is ever wrong on the island.  After all, it is only in America where you find gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers apparently.

At last the true Florestan stands up and reveals him or her self as a complete muppet blind to the terrible events that have been unfolding in USA in recent years.  Dream on Florestan.  You are an exemplar of why I fear lessons will simply not be learned in USA.  Starburst denial.  I shall continue to live in hope though, however remote that may seem.

Peter

Florestan posted:

a reply that was in all probability lifted straight from Breitbart!

"Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates"

I simply do not believe this. It is an absolutely ridiculous assertion.

"Fact: According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America".

Well, I really am glad that I did not read this before walking through the centre of Glasgow (the largest city in Scotland) alone after midnight, having just attended a concert. Are you seriously telling me that it is more dangerous to walk through the centre of Glasgow at night than it would be to walk through the centre of New Orleans, Chicago or LA

Here are some statistics I have just taken from the Internet. They are from the Internet, and so I can't vouch for their complete accuracy, and as we all know, statistics can 'lie', but they are quite striking.  

City                                                      Population (2016)                                    Number of homicides (2016)

Glasgow (Scotland)                           1.2 million (metro area)                            14

New Orleans                                      1.3 million (metro area)                            175

Detroit                                                 4.3 million (metro area)                            302

Chicago                                                9.5 million (metro area)                           762

There were apparently 58 homicides in Scotland as a whole in 2016. This is not something to be proud of, but hardly comparing with the number of homicides in the US.