What Other Countries Think Of Yank Gun Laws

Well, here is what Brazil thinks of US gun laws. How long before the EU will need to change to protect their own citizens?

Brazil Seeks to Copy U.S. Gun Culture

 

Fanfreakingtastic.

 

The more I think about it that really is fantastic news for us. If it passes it could start a shift worldwide. Israel loosening regulations is one thing, but Brazil as well. This whole argument between gun laws in different nations will flip.

 

I try but each time I fail to understand the gun control crowd. The countries with the strictest gun laws still have violence committed using guns and France is now the poster child of this fact.

Ask Australia about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis.
Everyone knows about Paris but many have forgotten Charlie Hebdo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting.
Mexico has oppressive guns law and it's a freaking free for all there.

It's funny to see people calling the anti-gun law people crazy when all the facts show that guns laws don't work. The worst part is that when someone does crack and decides to kill a bunch of people, the killing doesn't end until a good guy with a gun arrives and stops the carnage.

I suppose Forrest Gump's mother was right. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

That is because everyone not trying to build straw men, are talking about REDUCTION of firearm injury and mortality - not elimination

And guns stopped 9/11 in America? Did guns stop any of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

and I will not list them because there are too many to list

Yes but poor old Mexico is living next door to this country with all those firearms and easy smuggling routes

They do when enforced properly

NRA meme no 5

Idiocy incorporated

OOOH! Yes - that describes the NRA exactly

Meanwhile let us look at a reality cheque

After years of listening to Wayne LaPierre croon away about how "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," we finally have some real data to test whether this rationale for arming civilians (and selling more guns) is really true. I'm referring to a report on active shooting incidents just released by the FBI which analyzed 160 "active shootings" resulting in injuries to 1,043 victims, including 486 deaths, between 2000 and 2013.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's how these incidents ended. More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene. Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead. In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun.

The fact that 21 of these shooting situations were terminated by unarmed civilians as opposed to a single incident that ended because a good guy had a gun might come as a big surprise to the NRA, but for those of us who try to engage in the gun debate by issuing statements based on facts, this finding is consistent with other evidence that the pro-gun community chooses to ignore. For example, in 2005 Gary Kleck published a study funded by the Department of Justice which showed that persons who resisted assaults by running away or calling the police had a better chance of escaping injury than if they resisted the assault with a gun. This is the same Gary Kleck whose 1994 paper claiming that millions of Americans thwart crimes each year with guns is still cited by the NRA as its gospel for justifying civilian armed defense.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/fbi-report-active-shooters_b_5900748.html?ir=Australia

 

So, your cops are not good guys with a gun? Go figure.

 

No straw man here. Banning guns, aka gun control laws do not work. The facts bear that out.

Are you stupid? You should try to shoot down a modern airliner with a civilian firearm since you aren't smart enough to know how difficult it is.

Guns are used on nearly a daily basis here in the U.S. by civilians to stop criminals.

You aren't aware of all of America's borders, are you?

Really? Did gun laws prevent Paris? Oh so now you are insulting the French by saying they have failed to enforce their oppressive gun laws.

Do you hate women? You must. The only reason to take guns away from women is so men can easily take advantage of women and commit crimes against women. Women rarely commit crimes using guns so there's no other reason to prevent women from owning guns.

 

Meh! My country is not involved in illegal arms trading

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/ne...s-year-illegally-smuggled-mexico-study-finds/

Wonder what percentage of that finds it's way to the NRA pockets?

 

No they don't - now if you are interested in posting more than an opinion I will gladly show my data that backs me up

No I am not and I did not suggest that - BTW that is the last unreported personal attack you get to make.

My point is that terrorism is not stopped by guns - in fact it seems to thrive where there are more guns

No they are not - that little myth comes from a very poorly researched study and even the NRA (there is a thread about it here somewhere) has admitted to the fact that very few crimes are stopped by civilians with guns. In fact there is an abundance of research proving that you are more at risk if there is a gun in the house

Yeah But the Canadians are too nice to smuggle guns.........

Again where guns are in the vicinity women are at GREATER risk of death
America

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Internationally

http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/e...reater-risk-of-gun-related-domestic-violence/

 

Just FYI, your country has three times as much violent crime as ours.

Rape is especially a problem in Oz.

 

If you have statistics on rape alone in Australia I would be bloody interested to see it - especially since we do not keep stats on 'rape'. We keep stats on 'sexual assault' a far broader term that does include kissing and pinching someone's bum - without their consent
As for 'Violent crime' to compare our two counties is a joke - we have different laws, different policing different courts............

AND you do not keep accurate stats - even the FBI admits they are not accurate................

 

'Tapatalk'?????

THAT is your 'source'?????

Some blog somewhere on the internet with some made up pictures???

Oh! And

CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION

 

With regards to self-defense with firearms: few studies have been made of how often firearms are used for self-defense. Three spring to mind:

-In a 1992 nationwide survey, 3.5% of households claimed to have used a firearm in self-defense at least once over the preceding five years.

-In 1994, the CDC found that Americans use guns to frighten intruders an estimated 498,000 times per year.

-A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 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"

These are of course somewhat ambiguous, but one completely unambiguous fact is this: in the US, only 13% of home invasions are "hot robberies", e.g. occur while the occupants are home. In the UK, Canada and Australia, over 50% of robberies occur while the occupants are home.

As for the argument that women are more likely to be victimized by guns: part of the reason for this is cultural -- women refuse to own guns or train themselves in their use (only 13% of women in the US own a firearm, and perhaps twice as many are trained in their use). In general, most women that are victimized do not defend themselves, even having the tools to do so. This is sad, but it's ridiculous to say that it means we should take away one of the few equalizing tools they have at their disposal.

 

So we don't keep accurate stats... yet you're trying to use our stats to prove guns are dangerous?

You know what, you deserve to live in a dangerous country. Have fun with it.

 

a) murder stats are usually fairly accurate and that is because bodies are easy to count and hard to hide
b) rather be punched in the face than shot in the face
c) you are welcome - love destroying gun myths................

 

Lol.

That's just an infographic of a linear regression that's actually fairly easily available. Original sources:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Feel free to run the numbers against each other yourself.

Tapatalk is just a forum posting app.

No, but establishing correlation is the first step to establishing causation.

 

Oh look! Begging the question!

 

Why are we humoring this bozo?

75 million adults in America own guns, and we like it that way. If other countries don't like the idea of freedom, too bad.

 

All the data any rational person needs was on full display on Nov. 13 in Paris, France. Posting articles from rabid neoliberals websites like motherjones which use cherry picked statistics from reports isn't going to convince many that you have any interest in the truth.

Sure you did, you asked multiple times if guns were able to stop the 9/11 attackers. And I didn't personally attack you, I merely asked if you were stupid because anyone who thinks they can bring down an airliner with a civilian firearm isn't smart.

Yep, in that thread the data shows that there's almost no chance you'll need a gun to defend yourself. So if you accept there are 300 million guns or even 50 million guns in the U.S. then it proves that gun owners in the U.S. are incredibly responsible with their guns and that gun violence is incredibly low. Which is fantastic news and shows that we don't need the guns laws we have.

One of the studies your motherjones propaganda cherry picks data from shows that gun mortality rates are declining while gun ownership is increasing. For those of us who understand statistics that reads as, more guns appears to be linked with lower gun mortality.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full

From your linked propaganda "Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun." - click on homicide to find the report

"Although firearm mortality rates in the United States have decreased since 1993, firearms accounted for 28 663 deaths in 2000 and ranked 11th among all causes of death.1 Gun homicide rates have fallen dramatically in the last decade"

So you hate Mexicans also. According to you Mexicans are violent people who have no problem murdering people but Canadians are nice. Both countries border the U.S., check. The U.S. has tons of guns and relaxed gun control laws, check. Mexico has vicious gun violence, check. Canada has less gun violence than the U.S. and Mexico, check. Claiming that the U.S. is the cause of Mexico's gun violence is stupid, check. You claimed the U.S. is the cause of Mexico's gun violence.

According to the report I linked from your motherjones propaganda guns are the 11th leading cause of death. Now even if I were to believe the cherry picked data used by the report there are 10 other causes of death meaning guns cause almost no death, in fact they cause a statically insignificant amount of death. Meaning we have 10 other far more important problems to deal with before we consider taking guns away from everyone.

I don't blame you for being ignorant of the facts. You're a product of the propaganda you've been fed. You do need to take responsibility for yourself though and educate yourself instead of keeping your head in the sand and your hands over your ears.

 

Yes. Civilians do use guns on a nearly daily basis in the U.S. to stop violence. Here's an example of just such a case which occurred on Nov. 10th, 3 days prior to the Paris attack.

Http://ktla.com/2015/11/10/breastfe...-to-fend-off-home-intruders-in-north-carolina

I see these report nearly everyday because unlike you I don't keep my head buried in the sand. Again you hate women and don't want women to be able to defend themselves. Why do you want to disarm women? Why do you want to make it easier for you to take advantage of the weaker sex? Is there something we should know about you?

 

Yet we outside of the USA do not see anything like it. Neither do we see the commiserate levels of death from 'unprotected' civilians

Women are at a far greater risk from a gun in the home

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/africa/small-arms-put-women-at-risk-in-their-own-homes/

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...sk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=623145

- - - Updated - - -

Oooh! Look! Ignoring the corruption!

- - - Updated - - -

Don't want to take your guns away but do want to stop you from trying to find new markets here

 

You are really odd. You are linking articles which are based on other articles which are based on other articles which are based on studies using data from 1994 and published in 2003. Really? Here's the abstract from the report which was used as the basis for your 272% number...

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE:

I test the hypothesis that having a gun in the home is a risk factor for adults to be killed (homicide) or to commit suicide.

METHODS:

Two case-control analyses were based on national samples of subjects 18 years of age or older. Homicide and suicide case subjects were drawn from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey. Living control subjects were drawn from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey. Ten control subjects matched by sex, race, and age group were sought for each case subject.

RESULTS:

The homicide sample consisted of 1,720 case subjects and 8,084 control subjects. Compared with adults in homes with no guns, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for homicide was 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 to 1.65) for adults with a gun at home and was particularly high among women (adjusted OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.89 to 3.90) compared with men (adjusted OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.49) and among nonwhite subjects (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.21) compared with white subjects (adjusted OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56). Further analyses revealed that a gun in the home was a risk factor for homicide by firearm means (adjusted OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.40 to 2.12) but not by nonfirearm means (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11). The suicide sample consisted of 1,959 case subjects and 13,535 control subjects. The adjusted OR for suicide was 3.44 (95% CI 3.06 to 3.86) for persons with a gun at home. However, further analysis revealed that having a firearm in the home was a risk factor for suicide by firearm (adjusted OR 16.89; 95% CI 13.26 to 21.52) but was inversely associated with suicide by other means (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.84).

Seriously, 21 year old data from a report which seeks to validate the hypothesis that guns are evil? Yeah LOL, no bias there. Additionally your link buries the data so far down under so many links that it's like trying to find the way through a maze, I wonder why?

Your original link... http://blog.amnestyusa.org/africa/small-arms-put-women-at-risk-in-their-own-homes/

Then you have to go to... http://iansa-women.org/node/45

Then you are directed to this PDF... http://iansa-women.org/sites/default/files/newsviews/en-impact-guns-women.pdf

In the PDF the 272% number references endnote 20...

20 D.J. Wiebe, &#8220;Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated with
Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study&#8221;,
Annals of Emergency Medicine, January-June 2003, Volume
41, American College of Emergency

Googling "D.J. Wiebe, Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated with Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study" yields...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764330

The final link is where I finally dug the abstract up. Do you really expect me to buy into your argument when your evidence is based on a biased a report from an author seeking to find that guns are evil and who used 9 year old data with a sample size of 1,720 case studies?

Not to mention the fact that the authors of this garbage went to extensive length to bury the basis data and the fact that it's 21 years old.

Every time I investigate your links I turn up a pile of bullsheet. Sorry but you've now lost way too much credibility for me to justify humoring you anymore.

 

Just for craps and giggles I googled domestic abuse and guns wondering if I could find more recent reports and I did, not. What I found was a Huffington Post article which, drum roll, references the same steaming pile of bullsheet your linked article above references. Golly, real shocker there, eh?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/for-women-gun-violence-of_b_5913752.html

Excerpt:
"The National Rifle Association and its financial backers in the gun industry often raise the specter of an unknown assailant in order to encourage women to buy guns. However, our report makes clear that the vast majority of female victims are not murdered by strangers in a dark alley. In reality, having a gun can actually increase a woman's chance of being killed. One study found that women living with a gun in the home were nearly three times more likely to be murdered than those with no gun in a home."

When you click on "One study" you are directed to the study I found by navigating the maze you linked above. Of course HuffPo conveniently failed to mention the basis data is 21 years old at a minimum and probably much older. HuffPo then went on to say this...

"Based on our previous studies, we have found that the rate of females murdered by males in the United States declined 26 percent over 17 years: from 1.57 per 100,000 in 1996 to 1.16 per 100,000 in 2012 (see the chart below). However, this is unacceptably high compared to most other developed countries."

Which agrees with what I found earlier while investigating your other links. The FACT is, gun ownership rates have increased which gun violence rates have steadily decreased. That's a FACT confirmed by multiple sources on the gun-control side of the political spectrum.

You won't believe that though, will you? You'll continue to post links to more propaganda based on cherry picked data from only god knows how many decades or centuries ago. Come on open your mind and pull your head out of the sand, you can do it!

 

It is a FACT....that heavily armed towns and cities have a much lower level of violent crimes and violent gun crimes.

And this rate differential is HUGE!!

AboveAlpha