America, Violence and Guns

[Assume Nothing]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRG_I90GEIc

 

Lol, Bowling for Columbine

[obfuscator]

snip

That's insane. He didn't even look remotely abnormal (although he may have had he been walking).

[sees_all1]

snip

That's insane. He didn't even look remotely abnormal (although he may have had he been walking).

He was carrying at least 40, maybe 50 pounds of weapons. You would definitely be able to tell if he was trying to walk, and he definitely couldn't sit down.

[obfuscator]

snip

That's insane. He didn't even look remotely abnormal (although he may have had he been walking).

He was carrying at least 40, maybe 50 pounds of weapons. You would definitely be able to tell if he was trying to walk, and he definitely couldn't sit down.

Then again, he'd hardly need all that to do some damage. Plus, that's not nearly the most baggy clothes I've seen people wear...

[Zierro]

So why is it that in England, Wales and Scotland, where 'self defence' is not accepted as a proper reason for the police to issue you with a shotgun and gun ownership is largely contained to rural areas where hunting may need to take place, homocide by guns is almost unheard of; yet in Northern Ireland, where 'self defence' is accepted because of its history of sectarian violence during The Troubles, the rate of gun-related murders is about thirteen times as high?

 

Surely, those of us without the ability to defend ourselves should be suffering more than those who are.

 

There are differing histories, cultures, and people from country to country. To blame the outcome solely on the difference of laws and nothing else is a bit shallow. You TIFers and your attempts at using statistics in order to assert broad universal statements. :shame:

 

Lives have been lost because proper self-defense was not available, and lives have been saved because proper self-defense was available. I am aware that self-defense being available has also caused accidental deaths and gave "self-defense" nuts the power of killing someone over trivial reasons. But as I said, it's a trade off either way.

[Assume Nothing]

So why is it that in England, Wales and Scotland, where 'self defence' is not accepted as a proper reason for the police to issue you with a shotgun and gun ownership is largely contained to rural areas where hunting may need to take place, homocide by guns is almost unheard of; yet in Northern Ireland, where 'self defence' is accepted because of its history of sectarian violence during The Troubles, the rate of gun-related murders is about thirteen times as high?

 

Surely, those of us without the ability to defend ourselves should be suffering more than those who are.

 

There are differing histories, cultures, and people from country to country. To blame the outcome solely on the difference of laws and nothing else is a bit shallow. You TIFers and your attempts at using statistics in order to assert broad universal statements. :shame:

 

Lives have been lost because proper self-defense was not available, and lives have been saved because proper self-defense was available. I am aware that self-defense being available has also caused accidental deaths and gave "self-defense" nuts the power of killing someone over trivial reasons. But as I said, it's a trade off either way.

 

Let's just say America is a very broken society and people will always like killing other people.

 

Why not blame it on the welfare system in America? The 6 year old who shot the 6 year old girl (Kayla Rolland) only obtained the gun because his mother had nowhere to stay (Working 10h day shifts for minimum wage, with 2 hour bus trips both ways) due to rent, so he had to go to his uncle's, where he found the gun laying around (he probably thought it was a toy?)

 

Personally, I feel having a weapon for self-defence is silly either way. When guns are harder to obtain, without being completely restricted, gun related crime will go down, because guns won't be so widespread and easy to obtain every time someone turns homicidal and goes for a shooting spree (Columbine High School Massacre 1999).

 

Sure, it might open a black market for guns, but who says you have to be in a gang or mafia to commit a gun related crime? I don't have stats, but I doubt all the homocides with firearms are gang related deaths. I think some people base their ethics and morals on the law, too.

 

EDIT - And stop blaming cultural differences. You aren't that different, you're not the East.

[Zierro]

Let's just say America is a very broken society and people will always like killing other people.

 

Pretty much, unfortunately. Also, that bans have shown to be counterproductive in the US. *CULTURE COUGH*

 

Why not blame it on the welfare system in America? The 6 year old who shot the 6 year old girl (Kayla Rolland) only obtained the gun because his mother had nowhere to stay (Working 10h day shifts for minimum wage, with 2 hour bus trips both ways) due to rent, so he had to go to his uncle's, where he found the gun laying around (he probably thought it was a toy?)

 

I'm sure welfare might be a contributing factor, but I'm not the one blaming it on one sole factor if that's what you're trying to insinuate. In fact, I'm doing quite the opposite. My point is that the law isn't the only difference, and to blame it solely on that is neglecting every other cultural aspect between countries.

 

Why does Madagascar have a higher population than Sweden? It must be because Sweden has so much heavy metal because that is one single difference that I can point out. And no this is not a bad example - this is what happens when every single other aspect and factor of the country is being ignored but one. Simply put, it's fallacious deductive reasoning caused by people disregarding the fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

 

I'll even use a more fitting example:

 

* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law.

 

* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.

 

* Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect.

 

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

 

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I hate statistics, or rather how your average person handles them. Anything can 'prove' anything, and according to the logic I've been seeing, I have just 'proven' that banning guns in the US would have a counterproductive effect. :thumbup:

 

I apologize for the tangent though, as this wasn't even really directed towards you. Just the people who think a few statistics constitute as undeniable proof of a broad universal fact of sociology.

 

Personally, I feel having a weapon for self-defence is silly either way. When guns are harder to obtain, without being completely restricted, gun related crime will go down, because guns won't be so widespread and easy to obtain every time someone turns homicidal and goes for a shooting spree (Columbine High School Massacre 1999).

 

I personally believe they should be harder to obtain in some cases, such as making mandatory education in order to have a permit and other steps along those lines. I'm only against a complete ban, as it would make the criminals' jobs much easier - not in the sense of obtaining them obviously - but in the sense of nothing holding them back after they did obtain them. I get the feeling that a criminal would be more intimidated by a gun than a law.

 

Sure, it might open a black market for guns, but who says you have to be in a gang or mafia to commit a gun related crime? I don't have stats, but I doubt all the homocides with firearms are gang related deaths.

 

The black market is not just available to the most hardcore of criminals. There will also be Average Joes who believe in the freedom to bare arms that would use the black market to get that freedom.

 

EDIT - And stop blaming cultural differences. You aren't that different, you're not the East.

 

NO MAKE ME

[Dupin]

I find this relevant to the original topic/don't feel like making a thread only for this link

Watch the vid about halfway down the page.

[das1330]

I find this relevant to the original topic/don't feel like making a thread only for this link

Watch the vid about halfway down the page.

 

How is this relevant to a discussion about gun control? The only connection I can see is that severe injury is possible with any number of implements.

[Assume Nothing]

Why do people want guns so much? The only real counter-argument I see is that "it could be used for self-defense against dem criminals". You don't need to be a criminal, or a hardened homicidal person to kill someone with a gun. A shot could be fired to 'scare' a criminal and 'accidently' hit someone else.

 

Besides, how likely is it really that a criminal is going to try and shoot your face off? If it's likely, why? The problem lies here, and instead of using fear as a weapon, or using a weapon as fear, why not target the problem head on?

 

I think the logic behind the right to bear arms is kind of flawed. Unless the person has proper training with a weapon, they shouldn't have access to it because it's far more likely to kill someone else unintentionally with said weapon.

 

Why should Walmart's carry boxes and boxes of ammunition that could be sold to any 17 year old with a fake ID badge?

 

Gun related murders in the UK is almost unheard of, except for the recent Raoul Moat incident. Britain had slavery, Britain had English people, Britain had Christianity. What's so different about the UK and the States that there is a 10,000% difference in the number of firearms related deaths per year? Population may play a role, but it's not significant enough to explain the 100 fold difference in fire-arms related deaths.

 

In conclusion, I think a solution could be to make guns harder to obtain, and only sell them to people with proper training for a good reason (Hunting, for example). Perhaps more harsh penalties for gun law violations would be useful as well to act as a deterrent...

[Zierro]

Why do people want guns so much?

 

I would think this should be obvious now. To protect innocent lives and virginities from other people who will inevitably commit crimes and will inevitably obtain guns and other lethal weapons.

 

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

 

The only real counter-argument I see is that "it could be used for self-defense against dem criminals". You don't need to be a criminal, or a hardened homicidal person to kill someone with a gun. A shot could be fired to 'scare' a criminal and 'accidently' hit someone else.

 

Conversely, a gun could not be fired and instead utilized for intimidation, resulting in no deaths and possibly resulting in many potential lives being saved.

 

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

 

I think the logic behind the right to bear arms is kind of flawed. Unless the person has proper training with a weapon, they shouldn't have access to it because it's far more likely to kill someone else unintentionally with said weapon.

 

This logic has actually been debunked. There are way more successful usages of homeowner gun defense than there are gun related accidents.

 

* In D.C. v Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington's D.C.'s handgun ban, Justice Stephen Breyer authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The opinion states:

 

First, consider the facts as the legislature saw them when it adopted the District statute. As stated by the local council committee that recommended its adoption, the major substantive goal of the District's handgun restriction is "to reduce the potentiality for gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of Columbia." ...

 

... [A]ccording to the committee, "[f]or every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 gun-related accidents within the home."[128]

* This committee report cites no source or evidence for this statistic.[129]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[130]

* According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001[131] (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC[132]). This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes.[133]

 

Besides, how likely is it really that a criminal is going to try and shoot your face off? If it's likely, why? The problem lies here, and instead of using fear as a weapon, or using a weapon as fear, why not target the problem head on?

 

Good thinking. But how do you suggest we combat the problem? I personally don't know.

 

Gun related murders in the UK is almost unheard of, except for the recent Raoul Moat incident. Britain had slavery, Britain had English people, Britain had Christianity. What's so different about the UK and the States that there is a 10,000% difference in the number of firearms related deaths per year? Population may play a role, but it's not significant enough to explain the 100 fold difference in fire-arms related deaths.

 

Firstly, if every country had the same exact gun laws, do you truly think every country would have the same exact murder rate? You can't just pick one country with the ban that has a lower rate and then compare it to one country without the ban that has a higher rate. There are many countries that both have the same set of laws, yet have a significant difference in the rates. This alone indicates that there is more to the murder rates than one single law.

 

Secondly, you've only listed three trivial similarities to US and UK and then assert that there isn't much of a difference. There are tons and tons of factors to account for.

 

And thirdly, since you are still relentlessly clinging to statistics, can you explain why bans have been shown to have a counterproductive effect in the US, as I've exhibited to you with the statistics from my last post? Can you explain why, after the right-to-carry law was implemented in some states, the murder rate has actually had a significant decrease? Sorry to be pompous, but I think my statistics are a much more relevant and accurate means of finding out what happens when we ban guns in the US.

 

Why should Walmart's carry boxes and boxes of ammunition that could be sold to any 17 year old with a fake ID badge?

 

They shouldn't.

 

In conclusion, I think a solution could be to make guns harder to obtain, and only sell them to people with proper training for a good reason (Hunting, for example). Perhaps more harsh penalties for gun law violations would be useful as well to act as a deterrent...

 

Wait, how is having a gun for the incentive (or "incentive" *wink wink*) of hunting any better than having one for self-defense? I do agree that there should be training and education for those who want to own a gun though.

[Range_This11]

I don't want to split hairs, but your sources are borderline too old. 1982, 1994? That study from '82 is almost 30 years old...

[Zierro]

I don't want to split hairs, but your sources are borderline too old. 1982, 1994? That study from '82 is almost 30 years old...

 

BUT DISAGREEING WITH STATISTICS ARE NOT ALLOWED. I've actually been pointing out the flaws of statistics several times throughout the thread, and since any scrutiny and criticism against statistics seems to be completely disregarded, what better way to get the point across than using supporting statistics of my own.

 

Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you saying the 30-year-old statistics should be rendered useless because things surely must have changed? I agree that things are pretty much bound to change over the years, just as things are pretty much bound to change from country to country.

[Ginger_Warrior]

There's one thing saying statistics (or rather, judgements made from the field of statistics) are flawed, and saying they're wrong. Dismissing differences between countries in relation to their homocide rates by firearms as 'Culture' isn't proving a statistic wrong; it's plain laziness from an arguing perspective.

 

Statistics aren't wrong so long as the design behind them is correct and appropriate for the question in hand, and their limitations in terms of what they can actually prove are taken into account. Saying "X amount of people have used guns to defend themselves" doesn't answer the question, "Are guns needed for people to defend themselves?". The alternative possibility that they could have defended themselves via other means hasn't been explored.

 

Stop with the "Statistics are wrong" attitude and just argue the points made against you.

[Range_This11]

I don't want to split hairs, but your sources are borderline too old. 1982, 1994? That study from '82 is almost 30 years old...

 

BUT DISAGREEING WITH STATISTICS ARE NOT ALLOWED. I've actually been pointing out the flaws of statistics several times throughout the thread, and since any scrutiny and criticism against statistics seems to be completely disregarded, what better way to get the point across than using supporting statistics of my own.

 

Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you saying the 30-year-old statistics should be rendered useless because things surely must have changed? I agree that things are pretty much bound to change over the years, just as things are pretty much bound to change from country to country.

I'm not saying I disagree with the numbers or their credibility. And they're not useless either, they're just not relevant. Hundreds of policies have changed in 30 years and there's a good chance that some of them effected guns in some way.

[Dupin]

I find this relevant to the original topic/don't feel like making a thread only for this link

Watch the vid about halfway down the page.

 

How is this relevant to a discussion about gun control? The only connection I can see is that severe injury is possible with any number of implements.

It's not about gun control. It's about violence in American society. The original question of this thread was not about gun control, but about why gun deaths were so much more common in America than in similar countries. Most people would agree it has to do with a society that promotes violence and encourages a flawed view of masculinity and heroism. This is exactly the same problem as is shown in the news article, except the faults are in America's police service - a fact which screams out for recognition when discussing the problems with society in general.

[Zierro]

There's one thing saying statistics (or rather, judgements made from the field of statistics) are flawed, and saying they're wrong.

 

I have been arguing the first thing - not the second. You can use all the statistics you want. As long as people don't ignore the fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, things should run much more smoothly.

 

Dismissing differences between countries in relation to their homocide rates by firearms as 'Culture' isn't proving a statistic wrong; it's plain laziness from an arguing perspective.

 

Laziness? Lol, it's purely founded on precedent. Have a couple of laws stopped drugs? Nope. It made things worse. Now I admit, drugs are one thing - guns are another, so let's take guns into account. Americans will always feel entitled to guns, as it's been a right given to them at birth and they have been taught and raised that way. At the same time, there will always be a means of obtaining them, such as the ability to smuggle, the ability to make, the ability to hide, etc. There is supply, paired with very high demand. Can anyone guess what happens when we mix the two?

 

What about the statistics showing that the years after a gun ban resulted in more murders, and the years after a right-to-carry law resulted in less? I would think this is another implication that the US is pretty different in this sense.

 

Saying "X amount of people have used guns to defend themselves" doesn't answer the question, "Are guns needed for people to defend themselves". The alternative possibility that they could have defended themselves via other means hasn't been explored.

 

Guns are the most effective means of self-defense. Sure there are alternatives, but the vast majority of people are more intimidated by guns. You can explore the question if you want, since you brought it up and all. What methods are more effective for self-defense than guns?

 

Stop with the "Statistics are wrong" attitude and just argue the points made against you.

 

Kind of hard to argue about a logical deduction you made derived purely from statistics without bringing up statistics.

 

I'm not saying I disagree with the numbers or their credibility. And they're not useless either, they're just not relevant. Hundreds of policies have changed in 30 years and there's a good chance that some of them effected guns in some way.

 

Nice, we seem to be on the same page then. Like I said, things are bound to change year to year, just as they are bound to change country to country.

 

It's not about gun control. It's about violence in American society. The original question of this thread was not about gun control, but about why gun deaths were so much more common in America than in similar countries. Most people would agree it has to do with a society that promotes violence and encourages a flawed view of masculinity and heroism. This is exactly the same problem as is shown in the news article, except the faults are in America's police service - a fact which screams out for recognition when discussing the problems with society in general.

 

Good point. :thumbup:

[Range_This11]

I'm not saying I disagree with the numbers or their credibility. And they're not useless either, they're just not relevant. Hundreds of policies have changed in 30 years and there's a good chance that some of them effected guns in some way.

 

Nice, we seem to be on the same page then. Like I said, things are bound to change year to year, just as they are bound to change country to country.

What? How are we on the same page? I said your statistics aren't relevant to the discussion because they are outdated...

[Ember]

.

[Zierro]

I'm not saying I disagree with the numbers or their credibility. And they're not useless either, they're just not relevant. Hundreds of policies have changed in 30 years and there's a good chance that some of them effected guns in some way.

 

Nice, we seem to be on the same page then. Like I said, things are bound to change year to year, just as they are bound to change country to country.

What? How are we on the same page? I said your statistics aren't relevant to the discussion because they are outdated...

 

If you've been reading my posts, you would know that my point all along is that it becomes a stalemate for both sides when statistics and credibility are brought up. This has been stated several times in several of my posts. People constantly cling to statistics and ignore any criticism against them - so I returned the favor and showed conflicting statistics to get the point across that statistics shouldn't be the end-all means to predicting what would happen if guns were banned. There are several other logical factors to take into account - such as the fact that the US takes bans quite differently than your average country.

[Range_This11]

I'm not saying I disagree with the numbers or their credibility. And they're not useless either, they're just not relevant. Hundreds of policies have changed in 30 years and there's a good chance that some of them effected guns in some way.

 

Nice, we seem to be on the same page then. Like I said, things are bound to change year to year, just as they are bound to change country to country.

What? How are we on the same page? I said your statistics aren't relevant to the discussion because they are outdated...

 

If you've been reading my posts, you would know that my point all along is that it becomes a stalemate for both sides when statistics and credibility are brought up. This has been stated several times in several of my posts. People constantly cling to statistics and ignore any criticism against them - so I returned the favor and showed conflicting statistics to get the point across that statistics shouldn't be the end-all means to predicting what would happen if guns were banned. There are several other logical factors to take into account - such as the fact that the US takes bans quite differently than your average country.

I guess I understand what you did, it just seemed a little asinine at first.