Gun Control

[knapplc]

Worked out for Brazil. I'm all in.

 

Worked out for England. Worked out for Australia.

Not really. Those places had virtually non-existent gun violence even before they decided to ban guns. Brazil had out-of-control gun violence before they decided to ban them, and they still do. It may have even exacerbated the problem.

 

You're taking a very complex set of issues and dumbing it down to more guns = more violence. Which isn't necessarily true, anyways.

 

More guns = more gun violence. Less guns = less gun violence. Unequivocally true.

 

Knapp, not true. If you care to debate facts, countries with stricter gun ownership and lower gun ownership tend to have HIGHER violent crime rates. Criminals still use guns and/or other weapons to perpetrate crimes on defensless law abiding citizens.

 

Your "Unequivocally true" is just unequivocally your opinion.

http://warnewsupdate...lent-crime.html

 

Err... "violent" crimes do not equal gun crimes. The fact that you can commit a violent crime without a gun in your hand is not an argument in favor of keeping guns. That's a nice stat, but it has nothing to do with a gun debate.

[B1G Red]

South Africa is widely recognized as a "violent" place, and England with it's antigun laws has about a 30% higher violent crime rate.

[Junior]

That's not a point worth making. You're comparing apples and armadillos. Brazil's culture and is not in any way comparable to ours.

 

It's comparable in that we both have social, economic and drug related problems that tend to lead to violence. Just on different scales. But again, that's not the point. The point is more guns =/= more gun violence.

 

I've posted two links which discuss multiple scientific studies, on this page alone, that directly refute your statements. You've responded by ignoring those links and posting your suppositions as "proof". Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. If you want to keep your guns, fine, but don't try claiming Australia had no gun violence, or that more guns =/= more violence when every reputable scientific study says otherwise.

[knapplc]

South Africa is widely recognized as a "violent" place, and England with it's antigun laws has about a 30% higher violent crime rate.

Again, "violent crime" is not a gun debate. It's a matter of definition as much as anything else.

 

The Difference Between US-UK Violent Crime Rates Depends On Definition of ‘Violent Crime’

 

(RNN) – Pro-gun advocates have argued the United Kingdom is a perfect example of how ineffective gun laws are on crime. Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the world, the U.K. has a far higher violent crime rate than the U.S.

 

However, a closer look shows the U.S. has more burglaries, rapes, and murders than the U.K. The reason for the U.K.’s higher violent crime rate is their far broader definition of a “violent” crime.

 

An oft-cited source for the argument that the U.S. has a lower violent crime rate than the U.K. is a 2009 article in the Daily Mail, an English tabloid. The story put the U.K. at the top of a so-called “League of Shame” for its violence.

[B1G Red]

So you only care if a crime is committed with a gun?

[knapplc]

So you only care if a crime is committed with a gun?

 

The title of the thread is "Gun Control." Hence, we're talking about guns.

 

[B1G Red]

So we would no longer be safer, and would be subjected to higher violent crime rates, but since gun ownership would be lower, then all would be good.

 

Especially since your assumption that lower gun ownership would apply to both law abiding and criminals, cuz you know the criminals are going to hand them over also. Yeah right.

[knapplc]

So we would no longer be safer, would be subjected to higher violent crime rates, but since gun ownership would be lower, then all would be good.

 

Especially since your assumption that lower gun ownership would apply to both law abiding and criminals, cuz you know the criminals are going to hand them owver also. Yeah right.

 

You're on about this "violent crime" thing because it's fitting into your agenda. But you're not reading the article I linked, because the whole notion of "The UK has higher violent crime than South Africa" is ENTIRELY based on definition.

[B1G Red]

The flaw in your argument is that you seem to think the presence of guns is singularly causual to higher violence. I think you will be hard pressed to provide factual evidence that is the case. Violence is violence regardless if it is perpetrated in the presence of a gun or not.

 

It's kind of like saying if 100 people are killed yearly on blue bicycles, therefore painting all bicycles red will reduce deaths. "More blue bicycles unequivocally equals more blue bicycle deaths."

 

I happen to think that the way popular media expresess their 1st amendment right (just tune into prime time TV, or kids cartoons, or video games) contributes more to violence and a violent society, than people expressing their 2nd amendment right by owning a gun does. But it doesn't mean I'm ready to throw the towel in on the 1st amendment either.

[knapplc]

We. Are. Not. Talking. About. Generic. Violence.

 

We are talking about gun violence.

[carlfense]

You'd make a good lawyer Carlfense.

Don't know about that . . .

 

Instead of answering questions you just ask more questions.

I do think that all murders deserve attention. Not just mass murders.

[carlfense]

You'd make a good lawyer Carlfense. Instead of answering questions you just ask more questions.

Isn't he a lawyer?

The question lies in the underlined portion, IMO.

[carlfense]

Are murders that happen in masses the only things worth talking about or something?

I'll answer as soon as you show me where someone has made that argument in this thread.

 

Straw man. (You probably know that already.)

You brought up mass murders.

Very good. Now where did I say anything remotely close to mass shootings being the only thing worthy of attention?

Where did I say that you said that mass shootings were the only thing worthy of attention?

I think that the bold was directed my way, no?

[carlfense]

I happen to think that the way popular media expresess their 1st amendment right (just tune into prime time TV, or kids cartoons, or video games) contributes more to violence and a violent society, than people expressing their 2nd amendment right by owning a gun does.

Japan disagrees.

[Junior]

I happen to think that the way popular media expresess their 1st amendment right (just tune into prime time TV, or kids cartoons, or video games) contributes more to violence and a violent society, than people expressing their 2nd amendment right by owning a gun does.

Japan disagrees.

 

As do South Korea and the Netherlands:

 

 

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/12/dont-blame-the-video-games/

 

Presumably, then, if violent video games somehow translated into more deadly gun-related behavior you would expect the United States – which has far and away the highest levels of gun-related murders per capita – to be the biggest spender on such games. But this is not the case. In fact, according to the Post’s figures, U.S. spending per capita is ahead of only China. The Netherlands and South Korea spend more than twice as much per capita on video games, yet gun murder rates in these two countries are far, far lower than those in the United States. Japan, which has some of the most graphically violent games and animation in the world, has violent crime rates that are a fraction of those in the United States.