Gun Control

Scarlet said:
It's ok to be wrong bro.  

You didn't even have to watch the video.  They first chart clearly says "homicides by firearm per 1 million people".

View attachment 18269
Click to expand...




When you see stats like those from the Vox chart LINK do you ever stop and wonder why they are presented in the manner that they are?  If you glance at this colorful Vox graphic is appears that guns cause Americans to go around committing homicides.  

But then I wondered:  What percentage of homicides are gun homicides in the U.S.?  That led me to wonder: How does that compare to the other countries on the Vox chart?  The answer is below:  (The first column is from Vox.  The second column is total homicides per million population.)

Homicides           Guns     Total      % guns

United States     29.7        49.6        60%

Switzerland        5.9          7.7          77%

Belgium                17.0       6.8          40%

Luxembourg      3.0          6.2          48%

Canada                 17.6       5.1          29%

Ireland                  8.7          4.8          55%  (I had to compile these stats by hand--so I didn't do all the countries on the Vox chart) 

In the U.S. we have a lot of murders for a first world country.  A LOT! Over 6X as many as Switzerland, the next highest country on the Vox chart.  And we have more gun murders than most first world countries.  But not 400% more like the Vox chart would lead you to believe.   Considering the ease with which you can get a gun in the U.S. it's surprising our gun homicide rate (60%) is roughly the same as Ireland (55%) and only a bit more than Luxembourg (48%).

Given this, would you say the Vox chart is misleading?  Sadly, most people look at a chart like this and reach the conclusion it was intended to convey. 

(Note:  I used wiki as a source of data for total murders:  LINK ) 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hedley Lamarr said:
How do we compare regarding ethnical and socioeconomic by group to these other countries? Do you think this person or others would have created mass murder via other ways if not for a gun? Maybe a pressure cooker at the next event. Drive their car into a crowd? How did the assault weapons ban work when we tried it for a decade? 
Click to expand...


https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750656174/the-u-s-once-had-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-why-did-it-expire

What effect did the ban have?

Today we can look back at the 10 years of the ban and at 15 years since its expiration.

Critics of the ban have argued that it violated Second Amendment rights while accomplishing little, and evidence suggests it did not do much to reduce the incidence of gun violence overall.

What it did, its defenders reply, was reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings.

 
Hedley Lamarr said:
Do you think this person or others would have created mass murder via other ways if not for a gun? 
Click to expand...
People could do those things now and they don't. If somebody wants to carry out a mass killing, kill themselves or kill someone else, they can find a way to do it. Guns are simply the most effective and accessible way of doing so, particularly in regards to killing massive amounts of people in one fell swoop.

This same question was posed by other countries when they went through gun legislation discussions and, IMO, it's largely a red herring. The data from other countries is largely conclusive in regards to what happens when you eliminate the supply of guns and significantly increase the requirements for purchasing and owning one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hedley Lamarr said:
How do we compare regarding ethnical and socioeconomic by group to these other countries? 
Click to expand...


Not sure what you're asking here. Culturally they don't have the same gun interest America does, but that's pretty much the problem, right?  If we're comparing ourselves to just other first-world, wealthy nations, we vastly exceed their levels of 

Hedley Lamarr said:
Do you think this person or others would have created mass murder via other ways if not for a gun? Maybe a pressure cooker at the next event. Drive their car into a crowd? 
Click to expand...


@Enhance answered this quite well, but of course the answer is yes. But it's far more difficult without assault weapons, so why not make it more difficult?  

Hedley Lamarr said:
How did the assault weapons ban work when we tried it for a decade? 
Click to expand...


The 90s bill had no surrender/buyback clause and was intended to expire in ten years. It was a bill destined to fail. Smarter legislation will have a greater impact. 

 
Enhance said:
Guns are simply the most effective and accessible way of doing so, particularly in regards to killing massive amounts of people in one fell swoop.
Click to expand...
I’ll add that “assault weapons “ like AR-15s with their relatively lightweight, low recoil, large magazine capacity and long sight-radius make them far easier to accomplish this (vs handguns, shotguns or hunting rifles).  Especially with moving  and/or more distant targets.  

 
Decoy73 said:
I’ll add that “assault weapons “ like AR-15s with their relatively lightweight, low recoil, large magazine capacity and long sight-radius make them far easier to accomplish this (vs handguns, shotguns or hunting rifles).  Especially with moving  and/or more distant targets.  
Click to expand...
Agreed. I was actually intrigued to learn that you can purchase an AR-15 in the UK (I would've assumed it was illegal). But, the requirements are far more significant which boil down to needing a firearms certificate (you need one for each gun), and there are a lot of requirements involved in that processing including:

  • a passport photo
  • a "good reason" for purchasing
  • two referees (i.e. people willing to vouch for you - they must be in good standing, have known you for two years, and not be a family member)
  • You have to list what kind of weapon and calibre you want to get with the certificate, and then it can take up to 12 weeks to get it
  • You have to give permission for police to approach your general practitioner, and if you don't have one, you can't get the certificate



Edit - FWIW, I don't see an issue with that process at all. I'd welcome something like that in the U.S. And, of course, hand guns are not really an option there. Believe they banned private ownership in '97.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
we can't take away the god given right to murder as many people as possible as fast as possible.  if you get pissed at someone it is your right to fill them with as many bullet holes as possible.  if republicans ever want to carry out their god given order and execute all the democrats they will want their guns to do it as fast as possible.   

 
Back
Top