Gun Control
#26
(06-30-2016, 01:45 AM)Slam Ander Wrote: I can understand this, but wouldn't you say it's much harder to carry out mass violence with a gun, than the 3-4 people you might get to kill with a knife?

Well, of course, I'm not denying that, but when you remove guns from the equation, you only remove the method of how a person is going to commit violence, and not the predisposition that would lead a person to commit the violence in the first place.
Reply
#27
Knives are useful everyday tools whereas guns are not and I think that's a legitimate difference. A knife on your belt can save you a scvenger hunt to find scissors, cut yourself free from your seatbelt in a car crash, hack off branches for a nice walking stick on a trail and open food containers at lunch (I wouldn' recommend eating with an everyday-carry knife though). I bring my knife with me everywhere and it really sucks that my job doesn't allow me to because it sure would be useful cutting zipties or opening boxes. I guess what I'm getting at is that there are real reasons to carry a knife around that don't involving stabbing another person, whereas I find it hard to think of a reason to carry a gun around besides the off-chance of shooting another living thing, animal or human.

Places like Philly have high gun violence because they banned knives and thus it's so much easier to get a gun and use it instead even for petty crimes so statistically the amount if gun-crimes is inflated.

Although guns culture is appsolutely a thing that is not helping matters at all. You can legally own a flamethrower in many states, but when's the last time you've heard of someone actually killing/attacking someone else with one? Guns are in movies, games and TV shows and are flanted as this ultimate status symbol of cool but owning a gun is more likely to end your life faster than saving it.
Reply
#28
gun control is a conspiracy by the bourgeoisie to make sure the workers can never overthrow the capitalist state.
Reply
#29
Ok god
Reply
#30
mandatory guns for all
Reply
#31
Aye aye
Discount Jontron
Reply
#32
(06-29-2016, 07:53 PM)Tex Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 06:27 AM)King Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 05:06 AM)Tex Wrote: Gun control is inefficient, sees little success in many parts of the world, and doesn't even begin to scrape any of the real issues, IMO.

Most of the time, from my experience anyways, leftists/gun control advocates poison their arguments with anecdotal evidence and emotional platitudes. That being said, I can admit that there's a point somewhere in there. Guns need to be mediated to some degree, but trying to 'control' firearms is a very naive solution that won't fix the real issue, that being how people think and react to change and/or local culture.

Call me heartless, but I think that gun violence in general is not as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Considering that violent crime has been dropping steadily over the past 50 years in america, reaching about half of what it was in 1970 iirc, I'm somewhat astonished that so many people are still obsessed with method over methodology. It's one giant case of tunnel vision, and sometimes it pisses me off.

Mass shootings are horrible, yes, but they make up a fraction of gun violence, and although it might sound a little ignorant to some people, I honestly just think there isn't any way to prevent them. You can't realistically analyze every last person in america, and sociopaths/psychopaths can easily circumvent psychiatric evaluation at its current state of development. I'm just trying to think realistically here, and I've been told several times that this type of thought process is harmful, but as far as I'm concerned, the only harmful ideologies are the ones based on emotional backlash.

At any rate, I don't own a gun, I don't want a gun, and I'm not even american, lol.

Britain and Australia both heavily control firearms ownership and restrictions and have had barely any gun crime, virtually no mass shootings, since.

Not sure if this is still the case, but Britain's violent crime involving weapons like knives and whatnot had skyrocketed since the handgun ban. 

Australia's gun violence and homicide rates had been steadily decreasing if you look at the trend circa 1996 when the gun control laws were put into place. The reasoning for this was strictly due to a series of mass shootings in the past few years I think, but there's no real evidence to suggest that the gun control laws had any significant effect on violent crime aside from mass shootings. None that I can find evidence for, anyways. Correlation does not imply causality, Australia is nothing like America, Kangaroos are deadly, etc etc...

Regardless, we can't use anecdotal evidence collected from other countries. It's important to take into account that America's culture is significantly different from Europe's/Australia's/Norway's/etc. The same gun control laws implemented elsewhere could possibly flop just as hard as they did in Britain. I do agree that more thorough gun control could be a good idea, but it's not going to fix anything, and for all we know, it could actually make homicides using other weapons more prevalent. It needs to be implemented very carefully.


"Gun control is inefficient, sees little success in many parts of the world"

Don't say that then if you don't want to discuss other countries.
You could argue the knife crime rise was because guns were banned, but that's asinine. We've not had a school shooting since, no one has shot up any of our cinemas either. Gun control works.
Reply
#33
What I want to know is when are we going to see some real crossbow control? These scoundrels have been ransacking the hillsides for many moons, and it would be nice to see some real justice!
Reply
#34
Honestly I think the best things to help stop gun violence aren't really gun control at all. The drug war has created a demand for criminal organizations who fight each other and the police to provide a product, that wouldn't create violence if it wasn't illegal. But really our whole justice system is in need of reform, because it does nothing to help rehabilitate people, and just forces people right back into the system. Our recidivism rate is insane, and it will stay that way as long as there is an incentive to send people to prison. All of this would do little to stop mass shootings, but gun violence is far more than just that.

Although that's not to say that there aren't things that we could be doing to stop gun deaths that aren't rational criminal behaviors. There is plenty that we could be doing, just the nature of mass shootings and their ilk make them very difficult to stop.
Reply
#35
(06-30-2016, 10:01 AM)King Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 07:53 PM)Tex Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 06:27 AM)King Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 05:06 AM)Tex Wrote: Gun control is inefficient, sees little success in many parts of the world, and doesn't even begin to scrape any of the real issues, IMO.

Most of the time, from my experience anyways, leftists/gun control advocates poison their arguments with anecdotal evidence and emotional platitudes. That being said, I can admit that there's a point somewhere in there. Guns need to be mediated to some degree, but trying to 'control' firearms is a very naive solution that won't fix the real issue, that being how people think and react to change and/or local culture.

Call me heartless, but I think that gun violence in general is not as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Considering that violent crime has been dropping steadily over the past 50 years in america, reaching about half of what it was in 1970 iirc, I'm somewhat astonished that so many people are still obsessed with method over methodology. It's one giant case of tunnel vision, and sometimes it pisses me off.

Mass shootings are horrible, yes, but they make up a fraction of gun violence, and although it might sound a little ignorant to some people, I honestly just think there isn't any way to prevent them. You can't realistically analyze every last person in america, and sociopaths/psychopaths can easily circumvent psychiatric evaluation at its current state of development. I'm just trying to think realistically here, and I've been told several times that this type of thought process is harmful, but as far as I'm concerned, the only harmful ideologies are the ones based on emotional backlash.

At any rate, I don't own a gun, I don't want a gun, and I'm not even american, lol.

Britain and Australia both heavily control firearms ownership and restrictions and have had barely any gun crime, virtually no mass shootings, since.

Not sure if this is still the case, but Britain's violent crime involving weapons like knives and whatnot had skyrocketed since the handgun ban. 

Australia's gun violence and homicide rates had been steadily decreasing if you look at the trend circa 1996 when the gun control laws were put into place. The reasoning for this was strictly due to a series of mass shootings in the past few years I think, but there's no real evidence to suggest that the gun control laws had any significant effect on violent crime aside from mass shootings. None that I can find evidence for, anyways. Correlation does not imply causality, Australia is nothing like America, Kangaroos are deadly, etc etc...

Regardless, we can't use anecdotal evidence collected from other countries. It's important to take into account that America's culture is significantly different from Europe's/Australia's/Norway's/etc. The same gun control laws implemented elsewhere could possibly flop just as hard as they did in Britain. I do agree that more thorough gun control could be a good idea, but it's not going to fix anything, and for all we know, it could actually make homicides using other weapons more prevalent. It needs to be implemented very carefully.


"Gun control is inefficient, sees little success in many parts of the world"

Don't say that then if you don't want to discuss other countries.
You could argue the knife crime rise was because guns were banned, but that's asinine. We've not had a school shooting since, no one has shot up any of our cinemas either. Gun control works.
"Don't say that then if you don't want to discuss other countries."

I just... Did?

But just to be safe, here's some more discussion about other countries.

So let me get this straight. It's it ok if people are assaulted/die at knife point, but it's not ok if somebody shoots up a popular venue? It's fine if the homicide rate in Britain goes up as long as those homicides aren't being committed with guns? As long as a school doesn't get shot up, or a theater isn't put under fire, it's totally alright if more people die overall? Are you saying it's more important to make sure that people aren't getting shot, than it is to reduce overall homicide rates? If that's what you're saying, I'm sorry to say this, but I think that's a very narrow viewpoint to hold.

But, forget that for a second. Let's assume that the very heavy onset of non-firearm-related homicides in Britain after the handgun ban has nothing to do with... Well, the handgun ban. That's reasonable enough, the correlation is only very strong. CDIC though. For the sake of argument, let it be assumed that the massive rise in overall homicides doesn't prove that gun control is a very superficial prospect.

Britain's culture is very different from America's, including the ideology when it comes to guns. Britain's populace, from what I've read, was largely accepting of the gun ban, and still support it to this day with the thought process of 'I'd gladly give up my right to bare arms if I was assured my attackers were unarmed as well'. Americans don't think like that, and it's a very large factor to take into account when applying gun control.

America is huge, and borders with two other countries. It's a lot easier to smuggle weapons into America from Canada or Mexico. It's also much easier for a black market on weapons to thrive in a country that literally dwarfs Britain in both size and population. If gun control is poorly placed, it would most certainly exacerbate illegal gun activity, while disarming civilians in the process. There is no assurance that guns would become less prominent. It would make guns scarier. OoOoOoOo.

I never said gun control doesn't work, looking back. It works, but the only thing it does is reduce the amount of guns there are floating around the country/city it's placed in, and sometimes it doesn't even do that well enough, like in Chicago, where the handgun deaths escalated by around 40% over the proceeding 20 years after they banned handguns.

Gun control is good at taking guns out of civilian hands. That's all. It wasn't a 'success' in Britain. Firearm deaths dropped, sure, but the overall homicide rates have skyrocketed since. Comparatively, Amercia's Homicide rates have been steadily declining since 1994, despite the fact that it's in the top ten countries when it comes to firearm deaths.

Whoopie, way to go Britain, you sure did succeed at... Nothing.

Good gun control is more subtle. I'm sure there's a way it could be implemented in America without being a disaster or a failure. The question is how.
Discount Jontron
Reply
#36
You could say Canad's gun "culture" is similar to the US' s in many aspects, and I think we have some pretty sane gun control laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada
Cool
Reply
#37
(06-30-2016, 06:13 PM)Slam Ander Wrote: You could say Canad's gun "culture" is similar to the US' s in many aspects

this is untrue. the ownership of guns isnt a constitutional right in canada, which means gun control legislation is a far easier case to make both legally and culturally.
Reply
#38
In all seriousness, I am a second amendment supporter, I think guns are a pretty pivotal part of America and her spirit of independence, and I think they would be invaluable should a communist revolution ever happen (pity most gun owners are conservative).

I do think there should be background checks however, it shouldn't be easier to get a gun than it is to get a drivers license.
 
Reply
#39
the idea that a gun-wielding public is better equipped to deal with a tyrannical government is probably the dumbest defense of the 2nd amendment
Reply
#40
(06-30-2016, 10:40 PM)Ascaris Wrote: the idea that a gun-wielding public is better equipped to deal with a tyrannical government is probably the dumbest defense of the 2nd amendment

Hey, it works, look at the Vietnam War, you can have an armed insurgence against a modern army.
 
Reply
#41
(06-30-2016, 10:52 PM)Kirby Wrote:
(06-30-2016, 10:40 PM)Ascaris Wrote: the idea that a gun-wielding public is better equipped to deal with a tyrannical government is probably the dumbest defense of the 2nd amendment

Hey, it works, look at the Vietnam War, you can have an armed insurgence against a modern army.

I mean, at the cost of an absolutely horrible and bloody war. Also being allied on both sides by superpower nations didn't hurt.
-.---.----..
Reply
#42
(06-30-2016, 10:52 PM)Kirby Wrote:
(06-30-2016, 10:40 PM)Ascaris Wrote: the idea that a gun-wielding public is better equipped to deal with a tyrannical government is probably the dumbest defense of the 2nd amendment

Hey, it works, look at the Vietnam War, you can have an armed insurgence against a modern army.

im going to ignore the absurdity of this statement because it sidesteps the fundamental problem, which is the defense of policy based on an utterly ridiculous anarchical fantasy i.e. the united states engaging in civil war with its populace in the near future.
Reply
#43
(06-30-2016, 11:11 PM)Ascaris Wrote:
(06-30-2016, 10:52 PM)Kirby Wrote:
(06-30-2016, 10:40 PM)Ascaris Wrote: the idea that a gun-wielding public is better equipped to deal with a tyrannical government is probably the dumbest defense of the 2nd amendment

Hey, it works, look at the Vietnam War, you can have an armed insurgence against a modern army.

im going to ignore the absurdity of this statement because it sidesteps the fundamental problem, which is the defense of policy based on an utterly ridiculous anarchical fantasy i.e. the united states engaging in civil war with its populace in the near future.

To be fair, the whole gun-wielding-public-vs-tyrannical-government concept came about after the American Revolution, in a time when things were still uneasy and the fear of a tyrannical government was still apparent considering what they went through with the British government

I don't think it would be as applicable to America today, though
Reply
#44
(06-30-2016, 05:29 PM)Tex Wrote:
(06-30-2016, 10:01 AM)King Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 07:53 PM)Tex Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 06:27 AM)King Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 05:06 AM)Tex Wrote: Gun control is inefficient, sees little success in many parts of the world, and doesn't even begin to scrape any of the real issues, IMO.

Most of the time, from my experience anyways, leftists/gun control advocates poison their arguments with anecdotal evidence and emotional platitudes. That being said, I can admit that there's a point somewhere in there. Guns need to be mediated to some degree, but trying to 'control' firearms is a very naive solution that won't fix the real issue, that being how people think and react to change and/or local culture.

Call me heartless, but I think that gun violence in general is not as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Considering that violent crime has been dropping steadily over the past 50 years in america, reaching about half of what it was in 1970 iirc, I'm somewhat astonished that so many people are still obsessed with method over methodology. It's one giant case of tunnel vision, and sometimes it pisses me off.

Mass shootings are horrible, yes, but they make up a fraction of gun violence, and although it might sound a little ignorant to some people, I honestly just think there isn't any way to prevent them. You can't realistically analyze every last person in america, and sociopaths/psychopaths can easily circumvent psychiatric evaluation at its current state of development. I'm just trying to think realistically here, and I've been told several times that this type of thought process is harmful, but as far as I'm concerned, the only harmful ideologies are the ones based on emotional backlash.

At any rate, I don't own a gun, I don't want a gun, and I'm not even american, lol.

Britain and Australia both heavily control firearms ownership and restrictions and have had barely any gun crime, virtually no mass shootings, since.

Not sure if this is still the case, but Britain's violent crime involving weapons like knives and whatnot had skyrocketed since the handgun ban. 

Australia's gun violence and homicide rates had been steadily decreasing if you look at the trend circa 1996 when the gun control laws were put into place. The reasoning for this was strictly due to a series of mass shootings in the past few years I think, but there's no real evidence to suggest that the gun control laws had any significant effect on violent crime aside from mass shootings. None that I can find evidence for, anyways. Correlation does not imply causality, Australia is nothing like America, Kangaroos are deadly, etc etc...

Regardless, we can't use anecdotal evidence collected from other countries. It's important to take into account that America's culture is significantly different from Europe's/Australia's/Norway's/etc. The same gun control laws implemented elsewhere could possibly flop just as hard as they did in Britain. I do agree that more thorough gun control could be a good idea, but it's not going to fix anything, and for all we know, it could actually make homicides using other weapons more prevalent. It needs to be implemented very carefully.


"Gun control is inefficient, sees little success in many parts of the world"

Don't say that then if you don't want to discuss other countries.
You could argue the knife crime rise was because guns were banned, but that's asinine. We've not had a school shooting since, no one has shot up any of our cinemas either. Gun control works.
"Don't say that then if you don't want to discuss other countries."

I just... Did?

But just to be safe, here's some more discussion about other countries.

So let me get this straight. It's it ok if people are assaulted/die at knife point, but it's not ok if somebody shoots up a popular venue? It's fine if the homicide rate in Britain goes up as long as those homicides aren't being committed with guns? As long as a school doesn't get shot up, or a theater isn't put under fire, it's totally alright if more people die overall? Are you saying it's more important to make sure that people aren't getting shot, than it is to reduce overall homicide rates? If that's what you're saying, I'm sorry to say this, but I think that's a very narrow viewpoint to hold.

But, forget that for a second. Let's assume that the very heavy onset of non-firearm-related homicides in Britain after the handgun ban has nothing to do with... Well, the handgun ban. That's reasonable enough, the correlation is only very strong. CDIC though. For the sake of argument, let it be assumed that the massive rise in overall homicides doesn't prove that gun control is a very superficial prospect.

Britain's culture is very different from America's, including the ideology when it comes to guns. Britain's populace, from what I've read, was largely accepting of the gun ban, and still support it to this day with the thought process of 'I'd gladly give up my right to bare arms if I was assured my attackers were unarmed as well'. Americans don't think like that, and it's a very large factor to take into account when applying gun control.

America is huge, and borders with two other countries. It's a lot easier to smuggle weapons into America from Canada or Mexico. It's also much easier for a black market on weapons to thrive in a country that literally dwarfs Britain in both size and population. If gun control is poorly placed, it would most certainly exacerbate illegal gun activity, while disarming civilians in the process. There is no assurance that guns would become less prominent. It would make guns scarier. OoOoOoOo.

I never said gun control doesn't work, looking back. It works, but the only thing it does is reduce the amount of guns there are floating around the country/city it's placed in, and sometimes it doesn't even do that well enough, like in Chicago, where the handgun deaths escalated by around 40% over the proceeding 20 years after they banned handguns.

Gun control is good at taking guns out of civilian hands. That's all. It wasn't a 'success' in Britain. Firearm deaths dropped, sure, but the overall homicide rates have skyrocketed since. Comparatively, Amercia's Homicide rates have been steadily declining since 1994, despite the fact that it's in the top ten countries when it comes to firearm deaths.

Whoopie, way to go Britain, you sure did succeed at... Nothing.

Good gun control is more subtle. I'm sure there's a way it could be implemented in America without being a disaster or a failure. The question is how.

This is literally the worst post I've ever, ever seen. Everything in the first paragraph is a massive false dichotomy. No one, me least of all, ever said any form of violent murder was ok. 


Quote:It wasn't a 'success' in Britain. Firearm deaths dropped, sure, but the overall homicide rates have skyrocketed since

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/...ce-uk.html

Absolute bollocks but ok.


Literally the worst post I've ever seen.
Reply
#45
(07-01-2016, 07:03 AM)King Wrote:
(06-30-2016, 05:29 PM)Tex Wrote:
(06-30-2016, 10:01 AM)King Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 07:53 PM)Tex Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 06:27 AM)King Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 05:06 AM)Tex Wrote: Gun control is inefficient, sees little success in many parts of the world, and doesn't even begin to scrape any of the real issues, IMO.

Most of the time, from my experience anyways, leftists/gun control advocates poison their arguments with anecdotal evidence and emotional platitudes. That being said, I can admit that there's a point somewhere in there. Guns need to be mediated to some degree, but trying to 'control' firearms is a very naive solution that won't fix the real issue, that being how people think and react to change and/or local culture.

Call me heartless, but I think that gun violence in general is not as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Considering that violent crime has been dropping steadily over the past 50 years in america, reaching about half of what it was in 1970 iirc, I'm somewhat astonished that so many people are still obsessed with method over methodology. It's one giant case of tunnel vision, and sometimes it pisses me off.

Mass shootings are horrible, yes, but they make up a fraction of gun violence, and although it might sound a little ignorant to some people, I honestly just think there isn't any way to prevent them. You can't realistically analyze every last person in america, and sociopaths/psychopaths can easily circumvent psychiatric evaluation at its current state of development. I'm just trying to think realistically here, and I've been told several times that this type of thought process is harmful, but as far as I'm concerned, the only harmful ideologies are the ones based on emotional backlash.

At any rate, I don't own a gun, I don't want a gun, and I'm not even american, lol.

Britain and Australia both heavily control firearms ownership and restrictions and have had barely any gun crime, virtually no mass shootings, since.

Not sure if this is still the case, but Britain's violent crime involving weapons like knives and whatnot had skyrocketed since the handgun ban. 

Australia's gun violence and homicide rates had been steadily decreasing if you look at the trend circa 1996 when the gun control laws were put into place. The reasoning for this was strictly due to a series of mass shootings in the past few years I think, but there's no real evidence to suggest that the gun control laws had any significant effect on violent crime aside from mass shootings. None that I can find evidence for, anyways. Correlation does not imply causality, Australia is nothing like America, Kangaroos are deadly, etc etc...

Regardless, we can't use anecdotal evidence collected from other countries. It's important to take into account that America's culture is significantly different from Europe's/Australia's/Norway's/etc. The same gun control laws implemented elsewhere could possibly flop just as hard as they did in Britain. I do agree that more thorough gun control could be a good idea, but it's not going to fix anything, and for all we know, it could actually make homicides using other weapons more prevalent. It needs to be implemented very carefully.


"Gun control is inefficient, sees little success in many parts of the world"

Don't say that then if you don't want to discuss other countries.
You could argue the knife crime rise was because guns were banned, but that's asinine. We've not had a school shooting since, no one has shot up any of our cinemas either. Gun control works.
"Don't say that then if you don't want to discuss other countries."

I just... Did?

But just to be safe, here's some more discussion about other countries.

So let me get this straight. It's it ok if people are assaulted/die at knife point, but it's not ok if somebody shoots up a popular venue? It's fine if the homicide rate in Britain goes up as long as those homicides aren't being committed with guns? As long as a school doesn't get shot up, or a theater isn't put under fire, it's totally alright if more people die overall? Are you saying it's more important to make sure that people aren't getting shot, than it is to reduce overall homicide rates? If that's what you're saying, I'm sorry to say this, but I think that's a very narrow viewpoint to hold.

But, forget that for a second. Let's assume that the very heavy onset of non-firearm-related homicides in Britain after the handgun ban has nothing to do with... Well, the handgun ban. That's reasonable enough, the correlation is only very strong. CDIC though. For the sake of argument, let it be assumed that the massive rise in overall homicides doesn't prove that gun control is a very superficial prospect.

Britain's culture is very different from America's, including the ideology when it comes to guns. Britain's populace, from what I've read, was largely accepting of the gun ban, and still support it to this day with the thought process of 'I'd gladly give up my right to bare arms if I was assured my attackers were unarmed as well'. Americans don't think like that, and it's a very large factor to take into account when applying gun control.

America is huge, and borders with two other countries. It's a lot easier to smuggle weapons into America from Canada or Mexico. It's also much easier for a black market on weapons to thrive in a country that literally dwarfs Britain in both size and population. If gun control is poorly placed, it would most certainly exacerbate illegal gun activity, while disarming civilians in the process. There is no assurance that guns would become less prominent. It would make guns scarier. OoOoOoOo.

I never said gun control doesn't work, looking back. It works, but the only thing it does is reduce the amount of guns there are floating around the country/city it's placed in, and sometimes it doesn't even do that well enough, like in Chicago, where the handgun deaths escalated by around 40% over the proceeding 20 years after they banned handguns.

Gun control is good at taking guns out of civilian hands. That's all. It wasn't a 'success' in Britain. Firearm deaths dropped, sure, but the overall homicide rates have skyrocketed since. Comparatively, Amercia's Homicide rates have been steadily declining since 1994, despite the fact that it's in the top ten countries when it comes to firearm deaths.

Whoopie, way to go Britain, you sure did succeed at... Nothing.

Good gun control is more subtle. I'm sure there's a way it could be implemented in America without being a disaster or a failure. The question is how.

This is literally the worst post I've ever, ever seen. Everything in the first paragraph is a massive false dichotomy. No one, me least of all, ever said any form of violent murder was ok. 


Quote:It wasn't a 'success' in Britain. Firearm deaths dropped, sure, but the overall homicide rates have skyrocketed since

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/...ce-uk.html

Absolute bollocks but ok.


Literally the worst post I've ever seen.

Apologies, I was trying to make a point, which you seemingly refuse to address. That was awfully crude of me.

Still, if you're just trying to support the theory that Britain's gun control was a success, I believe you've failed to cite anything that even remotely supports it.

Since the 1968 firearms act, homicide rates had been steadily climbing well into 1997, which is when the handgun ban was put into place. There was a massive spike in homicides from then onward to 2002 where it peaked. I wasn't aware of the steady decline thereafter, that's my mistake. But judging by the homicide rates prior to 1997, I'd say it's difficult to argue that the handgun ban was a 'success' at all. The homicide rates have only recently fallen below what they were in 1997 (Around 2008 or 2009) and I highly doubt that this has anything to do with the firearms ban, considering the 11 year period prior to this. 

Iirc, the 1997 ban was put into place after Britain's only school shooting in history, but I'm foggy on the details of Britain's mass shootings prior to/following that.
Discount Jontron
Reply
#46
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.I...cations=GB He's not wrong
Cool
Reply
#47
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.I...cations=AU

However we don't see a similar trend in Australia, which also switched to the NFA in 1996
Cool
Reply
#48
(07-01-2016, 08:03 AM)Tex Wrote:
(07-01-2016, 07:03 AM)King Wrote:
(06-30-2016, 05:29 PM)Tex Wrote:
(06-30-2016, 10:01 AM)King Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 07:53 PM)Tex Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 06:27 AM)King Wrote:
(06-29-2016, 05:06 AM)Tex Wrote: Gun control is inefficient, sees little success in many parts of the world, and doesn't even begin to scrape any of the real issues, IMO.

Most of the time, from my experience anyways, leftists/gun control advocates poison their arguments with anecdotal evidence and emotional platitudes. That being said, I can admit that there's a point somewhere in there. Guns need to be mediated to some degree, but trying to 'control' firearms is a very naive solution that won't fix the real issue, that being how people think and react to change and/or local culture.

Call me heartless, but I think that gun violence in general is not as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Considering that violent crime has been dropping steadily over the past 50 years in america, reaching about half of what it was in 1970 iirc, I'm somewhat astonished that so many people are still obsessed with method over methodology. It's one giant case of tunnel vision, and sometimes it pisses me off.

Mass shootings are horrible, yes, but they make up a fraction of gun violence, and although it might sound a little ignorant to some people, I honestly just think there isn't any way to prevent them. You can't realistically analyze every last person in america, and sociopaths/psychopaths can easily circumvent psychiatric evaluation at its current state of development. I'm just trying to think realistically here, and I've been told several times that this type of thought process is harmful, but as far as I'm concerned, the only harmful ideologies are the ones based on emotional backlash.

At any rate, I don't own a gun, I don't want a gun, and I'm not even american, lol.

Britain and Australia both heavily control firearms ownership and restrictions and have had barely any gun crime, virtually no mass shootings, since.

Not sure if this is still the case, but Britain's violent crime involving weapons like knives and whatnot had skyrocketed since the handgun ban. 

Australia's gun violence and homicide rates had been steadily decreasing if you look at the trend circa 1996 when the gun control laws were put into place. The reasoning for this was strictly due to a series of mass shootings in the past few years I think, but there's no real evidence to suggest that the gun control laws had any significant effect on violent crime aside from mass shootings. None that I can find evidence for, anyways. Correlation does not imply causality, Australia is nothing like America, Kangaroos are deadly, etc etc...

Regardless, we can't use anecdotal evidence collected from other countries. It's important to take into account that America's culture is significantly different from Europe's/Australia's/Norway's/etc. The same gun control laws implemented elsewhere could possibly flop just as hard as they did in Britain. I do agree that more thorough gun control could be a good idea, but it's not going to fix anything, and for all we know, it could actually make homicides using other weapons more prevalent. It needs to be implemented very carefully.


"Gun control is inefficient, sees little success in many parts of the world"

Don't say that then if you don't want to discuss other countries.
You could argue the knife crime rise was because guns were banned, but that's asinine. We've not had a school shooting since, no one has shot up any of our cinemas either. Gun control works.
"Don't say that then if you don't want to discuss other countries."

I just... Did?

But just to be safe, here's some more discussion about other countries.

So let me get this straight. It's it ok if people are assaulted/die at knife point, but it's not ok if somebody shoots up a popular venue? It's fine if the homicide rate in Britain goes up as long as those homicides aren't being committed with guns? As long as a school doesn't get shot up, or a theater isn't put under fire, it's totally alright if more people die overall? Are you saying it's more important to make sure that people aren't getting shot, than it is to reduce overall homicide rates? If that's what you're saying, I'm sorry to say this, but I think that's a very narrow viewpoint to hold.

But, forget that for a second. Let's assume that the very heavy onset of non-firearm-related homicides in Britain after the handgun ban has nothing to do with... Well, the handgun ban. That's reasonable enough, the correlation is only very strong. CDIC though. For the sake of argument, let it be assumed that the massive rise in overall homicides doesn't prove that gun control is a very superficial prospect.

Britain's culture is very different from America's, including the ideology when it comes to guns. Britain's populace, from what I've read, was largely accepting of the gun ban, and still support it to this day with the thought process of 'I'd gladly give up my right to bare arms if I was assured my attackers were unarmed as well'. Americans don't think like that, and it's a very large factor to take into account when applying gun control.

America is huge, and borders with two other countries. It's a lot easier to smuggle weapons into America from Canada or Mexico. It's also much easier for a black market on weapons to thrive in a country that literally dwarfs Britain in both size and population. If gun control is poorly placed, it would most certainly exacerbate illegal gun activity, while disarming civilians in the process. There is no assurance that guns would become less prominent. It would make guns scarier. OoOoOoOo.

I never said gun control doesn't work, looking back. It works, but the only thing it does is reduce the amount of guns there are floating around the country/city it's placed in, and sometimes it doesn't even do that well enough, like in Chicago, where the handgun deaths escalated by around 40% over the proceeding 20 years after they banned handguns.

Gun control is good at taking guns out of civilian hands. That's all. It wasn't a 'success' in Britain. Firearm deaths dropped, sure, but the overall homicide rates have skyrocketed since. Comparatively, Amercia's Homicide rates have been steadily declining since 1994, despite the fact that it's in the top ten countries when it comes to firearm deaths.

Whoopie, way to go Britain, you sure did succeed at... Nothing.

Good gun control is more subtle. I'm sure there's a way it could be implemented in America without being a disaster or a failure. The question is how.

This is literally the worst post I've ever, ever seen. Everything in the first paragraph is a massive false dichotomy. No one, me least of all, ever said any form of violent murder was ok. 


Quote:It wasn't a 'success' in Britain. Firearm deaths dropped, sure, but the overall homicide rates have skyrocketed since

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/...ce-uk.html

Absolute bollocks but ok.


Literally the worst post I've ever seen.

Apologies, I was trying to make a point, which you seemingly refuse to address. That was awfully crude of me.

Still, if you're just trying to support the theory that Britain's gun control was a success, I believe you've failed to cite anything that even remotely supports it.

Since the 1968 firearms act, homicide rates had been steadily climbing well into 1997, which is when the handgun ban was put into place. There was a massive spike in homicides from then onward to 2002 where it peaked. I wasn't aware of the steady decline thereafter, that's my mistake. But judging by the homicide rates prior to 1997, I'd say it's difficult to argue that the handgun ban was a 'success' at all. The homicide rates have only recently fallen below what they were in 1997 (Around 2008 or 2009) and I highly doubt that this has anything to do with the firearms ban, considering the 11 year period prior to this. 

Iirc, the 1997 ban was put into place after Britain's only school shooting in history, but I'm foggy on the details of Britain's mass shootings prior to/following that.

Since then, there has been one mass shooting, which was done with completely legally owned weapons that left 12 dead. Since we already have reasonable and well thought out restrictions the law was not changed. 

Of course homocides would increase with the mass increase in population that Britain saw in the Blair years. Something you're also ignoring is that the UK also contains N.Ireland, which has, over the course of it's existence, been plagued with numerous troubles and murders stemming from the civil war. 

To claim that firearm restrictions and controls have had no effect on a massively declining homicide rate is absolute bullshit.
Reply
#49
Cutting the giant reply chain because JFC it's long.

The 'mass increase in population' between 1997 and 2004 was a total of 1.26 million people. Pop in 2004 was 59.5 million, which means there was roughly a 3% increase in population during the time period where homicides took a massive upturn. Considering the homicide rate spiked so powerfully during this time period before quickly dropping, rising by around a whopping 50%, I don't think the population increase is a viable factor whatsoever.

As for Ireland, I think the fact that their homicide count making up about 4-5% of the homicides in the UK on average is a sound rebuttal to any claim that they have a significant impact on the overall rates at all, making it a pretty moot point.

I did some research though, and there were some disastrous events that explain about 40% of the homicide spike in the years of 1997-2005. This still leaves us with a 25% spike in homicides, and a homicide rate that doesn't actually drop below what it was prior to the ban for 11 years.

The population increase doesn't account for this at all, especially since younger children are much less likely to be a victim of violent crime, according to statistics. It does however make the drop in recent years more significant by a large degree.

To claim that firearm restrictions have had a significant effect on a massive decline in homicide rates with an 11-15 year delay is absolute nonsense.
Discount Jontron
Reply
#50
your statistical interpretations are entirely conjecture (as are kings). there are a gazillion things that affect homicide rates and trying to explain it using solely one or two pieces of legislation that were passed years/decades ago is terrible analysis. if you can find legitimate research that controls for whatever variables need to be controlled for, it would actually make your argument convincing.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)