Facts on Gun Control: It doesn't work.

Being necessary to the security of a free State is a form of gun control.

 

Ahhh proof that my previous statement was accurate....carry on old chap.

 

With what, kiddo? You want me to guess why you worship your masters, or what? Come ON!

 

says the mud hut peasant.............how many auto deaths are you responsible for today?

 

well a highschool diploma such as you have, will not be able to trump my education. It shows here when you post drivel and whine like a subject

 

The United States is an experiment in freedom. The more you take away, the less everyone has. It's that simple. Patrick Henry never said, "Give me liberty or give me safety." It was liberty or death. We choose liberty even at risk of death. You choose safety at the death of liberty.
All should be innocent until proven guilty, not before.

I enjoy hunting and my son has enjoyed the same. Laws can be honed if lacking but if your definition of gun control is gun banning then count me out.

 

So? Lots of people enjoy hunting in the UK. Can't see the fun in it myself. I've only killed for grub

 

Wow! a lot of flailing to prove nothing.

First, there is no analysis of the raw data. It proves nothing more than figures lie and liars figure; without comparative analysis the numbers are meaningless.

Second, you are only looking at US jurisdictions.

Any idea what country has the LOWEST homicide rate on the planet?

China.

Want to know who gets to carry a gun in China besides cops and soldiers? No one.

Ever looked at the homicide rate in Canada in comparison in per capita terms to the US and IT's homicide rate? Hmmmm?

Allowing for population difference, Canada's homicide rate is a fraction of that of the US, even when you factor in the differences in how the two country's classify "homicide".

Guess who gets to carry a hand gun in Canada besides cops?

No one.


The fact of the matter is that gun control works absolutely. There is no question. Study after study has proven beyond ANY doubt that strict regulation of the sale, transport, storage, security and use of ALL weapons not only reduces illegal shootings [fatalities and woundings] but considerably reduces death and injury from accidents.

The question IS whether the United States is socially developed enough for gun controls to work there?

Considering the US is the only nation on the planet whose people INSIST on being allowed to own and carry a leaded weapon whose ONLY use is to kill other human beings..

I suggest a society that either that unsafe to need that kind of security, or is so paranoid as to think it does, is not a true society at all....but well disguised barbarians

 

What gun controls are you proposing? The ones where no one but police and military carry guns? Why can't there be strict regulation of the sale, transport, storage, security and use of all weapons but still allow the public to own them?

There are a tad bit more uses than that, but if it sticks your landing, then cling to it if you must.

But dare I make a conflicting point? What if you need so much security and you are so paranoid, that you would take guns from everyone around you?

Which is more secure? A public that owns guns or a government that prevents the public from owning guns?

Which is more paranoid? A public that owns guns or a government that prevents the public from owning guns?

Freedom is about responsibility so your government must think you are all pretty irresponsible.

Just saying. Nothing like a little pre-judgement to hamper freedom's ring.

 

says the guy who habitually resorts to more fallacies for his Cause.

 

You mean the educated can't summarize? Geez even more proof of the prophecy of my statement, my old pappy said when you are in a hole, it's time to stop digging. Sage advice for educated idiocies, eh.

 

facts are facts, buddy.









Also:

The estimated number of black market guns doubled from 1990 to 2000, in spite of the measured implemented in 1986 and 1997. More evidence for the simple fact that gun control stops law abiding people from getting guns, not criminals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/sep/03/ukguns.tonythompson

 

Also:

Estimated number of black market weapons in UK doubled from 1990 to 2000, despite the measures impemented in 1986 and 1997.

More evidence for the simple fact that gun control stops law abiding people from having guns, not criminals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/sep/03/ukguns.tonythompson

 

You have to show that there is a structural break. There isn't. The idea that a small reduction in handgun ownership has significant effects on crime is silly. That the pro-gunners have attempted to suggest it only shows how idiotic their argument really is.

Is the subsequent massive reduction in crime due to low gun ownership in the UK? Of course not. We have to achieve "other things equal" given, as criminology obviously shows, there are multiple factors that impact on crime. Even if you adopted the terribly simplistic Chicago approach (something right wing yanks will get a hard-on over) that result stands

 

The argument is that gun control in the UK worked to reduce crime. The data I posted shows that this isn't true. That is all.

 

As I said, handgun ownership was too low to adopt any simple approach into crime effects. You've posted raw data that cannot make any evaluation on crime effects. Did it reduce spree killings? Did it have long term effects by impacting on gun culture? Those sort of questions would require much more involved data

 

So based on what youre saying, there is a lack of evidence that gun control works, or does not work, due to insufficient data. Aka, there is no evidence from the UK that gun control works.

 

Handguns were too rare to use British data. Did it work? We can of course refer to the numerous empirical studies that support the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. Its safe to say that the British peoples are glad for the gun control measures

 

Nope.

There are countries with low crime and relatively high gun ownership, and everything in between

Country------- Firearm Homicide ---- Gun Ownership

Brazil 18.1 - 8
Argentina 3.02 - 10.2
United States 2.97 - 88.8
Macedonia 1.21 - 24.1
Switzerland .77 - 45.7
Turkey .77 - 12.5
Belgium .68 - 17.2
Luxembourg .62 - 15.3
Taiwan .44 - 4.4
Canada .51 - 30.8
Ireland .48 - 8.6
Finland .45 - 45.3
Portugal .41 - 8.5
Netherlands .33 - 3.9
North Ireland .28 - 21.9
Denmark .27 - 12
Greece .26 - 22.5
Austria .22 - 30.4
Spain .2 - 10.4
Germany .19 - 30.3
New Zealand .16 - 22.6
Australia .14 - 15
Israel .09 - 7.3
England/Wales .07 - 6.2
France .06 - 31.2
Norway .05 - 31.3
Iceland 0 - 30.3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

Russia also has a low amount of guns (8.9), and a high level of overall homicide, although I couldnt find any data on gun homicides.

---------

And if you want to start looking at developing counties as well, the countries with the highest gun homicide rate by far have relatively low amounts of guns, according to this data.

Also, in the US, the majority of homicides are committed by gangs, and repeat criminals.

Do you think that repeat offenders and gangs are going to get rid of their guns because its illegal to have them?

Gun control does not disarm criminals.

Also, handgun supply in the US has been increasing significantly and steadily over the past decades, and homicide rates have been decreasing at the same time. Of course there are many factors that play into crime rates, but its just another nail in the coffin in the idea that allowing law abiding citizens to own guns will increase crime.

 

Of course there is as gun ownership isn't the only variable that impacts on crime rates. You have to refer to studies that isolate gun effects.

Actually the evidence shows that the legal and illegal markets are inherently linked. This is a major reason why, as gun prevalence increases, the probability of being a victim of gun crime also increases.

There is "no nail in the coffin". There is simply abuse of spurious relationship. Britain has seen significant reductions in crime over time. Is that due to the low gun prevalence rates? No. That reflects the numerous other factors at play. One of the most common attempts at misinformation used by the gun lobby is the abuse of raw statistics. Don't fall into the trap!

 

Aren't American extremists weird!

- - - Updated - - -

Well, if it makes you happy, kid, you go on believing that!

 

A failed experiment, since you have more people in prison than any country in history and total spying on your every move (like us in your colony here). Until you get rid of guns you'll be the mockery of the world, as you shoot your children. 'Freedom' my American elbows!

 

Don't fall over that cracker-barrel on the way home, kid. It's been rotten these many years, out there in Lyncher's Landing!

- - - Updated - - -

'facts are facts, buddy'.
And you made them up this morning to prove it! Don't be sillier than your masters made you.

 

It seems odd to me that the people who support gun control, never have to prove that gun control is statistically significant.... but people who oppose gun control always have to prove that it's statistically insignificant, or they are assumed wrong. Why is that? Why is the burden of proof always on others?

 

What on earth are you rambling on about now? The empirical study into the impact of gun control is well known. Indeed, you've already been given an example with a study into the buy-back scheme. Think before you type