Gun Control

again, your bbc article is 4yrs old..... and it was written by a member of the public....

NO more credible than my opinion. Open your eyes, see the truth, not what you want to see, and stop going looking at things that only support your opinion. and ESPECIALLY stop posting out of date, irrelevant information!
 
Sgt Major, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence even attempting to show that gun bans lower crime from anyone in this thread, much less a rebuttal to all the stats I've posted thus far. I just said I found the article interesting and relevant. And 4 years ago was still 7 years after Dunblane and the subsequent ban on handguns. That's plenty of time to show a trend. I haven't verified the information in the article. If it's wrong, show me.
 
So you don't see that there hasn't been a single dunblane style shooting over here since the gun ban as a trend?
 
ok, I'll bite:


The two 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Acts resulted in the prohibition of the vast majority of handguns in Great Britain. As a result of the prohibition and the surrender exercise, more than 162,000 handguns were handed in to local police forces.

Top most fatal shootings
              
Apr 2002 - Germany - 17 dead - Legal guns, pistol club member
Sep 2001 - Switzerland - 15 dead - Legal guns, licensed pistol owner
Jul 1999 - USA - 13 dead - Legal guns, no licence required
Apr 1999 - USA     15 dead - Not legal guns
Apr 1996 - Australia - 35 dead - Not legal guns
Mar 1996 - Dunblane - 18 dead - Legal guns, pistol club member
Oct 1991 - USA - 24 dead - Legal guns, no licence required
Nov 1990 - New Zealand - 14 dead - Legal guns, licensed gun owner
Jun 1990 - USA - 10 dead - Legal guns, no licence required
Dec 1989 - Canada - 15 dead - Legal guns, no licence required
Aug 1987 - England - 17 dead - Legal guns, pistol club member
Aug 1986 - USA - 15 dead - Legal guns, no licence required
Jul 1984 - USA - 22 dead - Legal guns, no licence required
Aug 1966 - USA - 17 dead - Legal guns, no licence required

7 in the USA
1 in Scotland, 1 in England (before 1997 legislation)
5 in other areas

All but 2 were legal firearms. In a study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shootings in the United States during 40 years, 62% of handgun shootings and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms
 
As much as I hate doing this...

Guys, Wesson is, for the most part, correct. The number of criminals who engage in shootings with legally obtained firearms is nowhere near as big as you all seem to think. I'm not sure what you guys want to see in terms of gun control; we can make make it as hard as we want for Joe Citizen to obtain a firearm, but the fact of the matter is that has absolutely no impact on folks who will steal guns from lawful owners, and yes, that includes minors who dteal daddy's legally obtianed guns and go nuts at school (I am 99% certain that possession of firearms by a minor is a crime in all 50 states). Gun control laws are great after-the-fact remedies to increase sentencing penalties, but that doesn't do anything about the black market which already exists, and serves only to penalize the citizens who are engaging in lawful behaviour while allowing the criminals to runfree de-regualted. This makes sense how?!? What exactly do you want to see besides a complete ban on firearms, which so isn't gonna happen here in the US?

I'm off to go wash my brain now...
 
GC.... can you therefore explain the stat that

In a study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shootings in the United States during 40 years, 62% of handgun shootings and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms
 
I'll give you that. Most shooting sprees are carried out by people with little to no prior criminal records, so they are legal to own firearms up until they start shooting. If they're legal to buy, it's certainly easier to go to a gun store and fill out the paperwork than to buy one off the street corner and worry about getting caught with an illegal/stolen gun before they can ultimately accomplish their goals. With those numbers though, you're talking about 247 murder victims in a 40 year time span in over a dozen different countries. I'd bet there were more than 247 murders that took place in the last week in all those countries together. Gun control might have some effect on these killing sprees, but most is ineffective and detrimental to overall crime rates.
 
There are hundreds of thousands of undocumented weapons in the US. If you think that criminals are just going to go "ah, geez you banned them, well here you go", you are truly an idiot.

The threat is created by poverty, apathy, drug use, poor social skills and education. Violence is the symptom and the need for firearms is a defensive response to the violence. GETTING RID OF THE FIREARMS WOULDN"T CHANGE A DAMN THING! THEY ARE A SYMPTOM, NOT A CAUSE! Your head is apparently so thick you don't need to fear bullets because your head could stop them.

Your speculations about myself and the United States are making you look like a fool. You have not been here, you do not know the political, economic or social climate but somehow feel qualified to give your armchair analysis of what the problem is. Which amounts to "uh, guns are to blame". Your argument is pathetic and laughable and you still have not answered the question that was directed at you.
 
A) The study is worthless, to be perfectly frank, in terms of it's control group. There are how many gun-related crimes in America each year, and the control group is 65 over a 40 YEAR period? Anyone who deals in statistics on a regular basis knows that is a really bad control group.

B) If they have included Columbine, Red Lion, or any other school shootings (and I'm making an assumption here), then the description of "legally owned" is utterly incorrect. As I said earlier, it is, as far as I am aware, a crime in all 50 states for a minor to possess a firearm. If they include a kid taking daddy's gun, that is NOT a legally-owned firearm, it is a stolen firearm.

C) Compare the majority of murders in the US committed with illegal firearms to this really poor study. You'll find that most homicides committed in the US with firearms are committed with illegal firearms. Yeah, the corner crackhead may not go on a shooting spree and take out thirty kids (he'll just hit one or two), but the fact of the matter is that most crimes committed with firearms here in the US involve illegally obtained firearms.

D) It's chosen to analyze a specific subset of gun-related crimes which, to be frank, constitutes a small percentage of gun-related crimes. If it's just examining mass shootings, of course the stats look bad. But when you consider how few of these there are, it's not such a big number.

People are running around talking about crazy killings, forgetting that these perps make up a very small percentage of gun owners. It's the illegal guns which are infintely more dangerous.
 
If anyone is curious about actual individual state gun control laws, www.packing.org is a great source, though it mainly deals with concealed carry laws.
 
Just be careful. Some of their stuff isn't up-to-date, so always check with an attorney or local constabulary to make sure what the current laws are in your state.
 
As much as I agree with you, I do have to assume that "legally owned" in this case simply means the gun was bought from a gun store or other legal means and wasn't stolen from the rightful owner. As soon as someone commits a felony while in possession of a firearm, that firearm becomes illegally owned. Actually, as soon as anyone commits any felony period (or some domestic violence misdemeanors), they are no longer legal to own any firearms for life. It technically isn't possible to murder someone with a legally owned firearm because as soon as you draw the weapon on them, you just committed a felony and are not legally allowed to own a firearm.
 
Yeah, I know my own state's laws pretty well. As a CCW holder, I have to. I only go there when checking on changes with other states. A planned trip to Ohio later this summer had me checking last week to see how I'd have to store my weapon to legally transport it through the various states.
 
with all respect to mrwesson22, please don't refer to 32 deaths as " a drop in the bucket." the pain and hurt is way too fresh, to use such insensitive terms. That said, though, I think that our friends in europe don't have any chance of seeing things our way. they have a tradition of being unarmed, and like it; as long as the nanny state promises to take care of them, they're not interested in fending for themselves. the united states has a heritage of firearm ownership, and, liberal wingnuts aside, most people probably understand that there is no way that all guns will be taken off the streets. both sides can have their viewpoints. i just find myself being irritated by the naive viewpoint (yes, it is naive) that we can make all guns go away, and this will all be a bad dream. as long as anyone has guns, anyone who is not a criminal, and is not mentally ill, who wants one, should be allowed to have one.
 
No one is saying there will be NO guns on the street - we are3 saying there will be LESS guns on the street.

after all "guns dont kill people, people kill people" - so why not give them a few less deadly weapons to do it with??
 
I think an outright ban is needed. If certain portions of the population can obtain guns easily, you can be sure that it won't be much harder for the rest to get hold of them.
 
Why should the law-abiding citizens be penalized for the jerks?



I'm going to 100% disagree. Right now the entire country is working on a hell of a lot of knee-jerk reactions that have even gone so far as to start a furor over last night's poorly timed eyeroll by Simo Cowell on American Idol, which came right after Chris Richardson's poorly-timed shout out to Virginia. People need to be reminded that now is not the time to go off the handle.




Thatr's why I noted I was making assumptions (or I thought I said that). I'd like to see the murders in question which were used for the study, just to look on my own, tbh.

While you and I may grasp the difference, it's possible the study didn't. It's also possible I'm wrong. It does happen once in a while
 
Gun ownership should be a priveledge, not a right. Then it removes that argument of penalisation.
 
Back
Top