To starty this debate, lets say that we're starting up a brand new country with no existing laws or cultural prejudices on the issue. This is because it is a much different arguement if you take the U.S., than if you take somewhere like Britain. It prevents arguments revolving around destroying the thousands of jobs in the industry too.
So. Brand new country. What are its gun laws going to be?
Should people have the right to own guns? If so, should they be securely locked away in a cabinet until the country is invaded, or should people be allowed to carry them on the street? Should people be allowed handguns but not assault rifles?
Although statistics are important, they are not completely reliable. Unlike science, it is impossible to successfully isolate certain conditions as to create a more accurate answer. That being said, we must use statistics the best we can, but we should never blindly accept them.
I myself have to do more research, but have you considered the amount of gang activity in America and what causes gangs to become so powerful? Have you looked at individual cities and compared them? Have you compared different states according to gun laws?
You will find that many cities with strict gun control laws have higher crime rates than those with loose gun control laws. This doesn't necessarily mean anything. It could be coincidence, but it is still something to consider.
Although statistics are important, they are not completely reliable. Unlike science, it is impossible to successfully isolate certain conditions as to create a more accurate answer. That being said, we must use statistics the best we can, but we should never blindly accept them.
I fully agree. Thats why, with unscientific intuition, I see gun laws having no effect on protection of persons and why I see some countries that are just more socially responsible. America is not a socially responsible county. UK is bordering on it and Sweden is much more socially responsible. I guarentee that if UK brought in gun control and allowed an armed police and civilians that gun crime and death would rise.
I myself have to do more research, but have you considered the amount of gang activity in America and what causes gangs to become so powerful?
Most of the gun crime is probably done through illegal guns. In America guns are cool. In UK guns are a fairy tale used in games and ideas. In Sweden guns are a responsibility. Its all in the culture.
Have you looked at individual cities and compared them? Have you compared different states according to gun laws?
I have not delved that far in because we are then arguing over statistics that dont take into account a citys temperament or the states police corruption and/or armed gang culture.
Gun control is not working for the Americans. No guns is working for the UK. Gun control is working for the swedes. Guns are not working for the Afghanis or the Africans.
I will admit as you showed before, Im idealogical. As was also mentioned before, I also dont see USA getting rid of its guns anytime soon ... its embedded in the "culture".
I find it difficult to say the USA or Americans tbh. I like general ideas but I hate over generalising populations. USA is one of the most over generalised targets of opinion and its unfair in my view. And in the same way looking at Edinburgh (Scotlands capital) compared to London you could safely bet that London has more gun death than Edinburgh because of the gang culture that arises when an ethnic minority moves in en-force and is distanced from the local population creating segregation, racisim and the need to belong or bond to a group for safety. Why is it that there are alot of africans who come to London with an idea of being black that is taken directly from black american gang culture. All the movements and speech patterns mimic a black rapper from USA (this is rapidly spreading to the rest of the world and in many places already has a firm effect on language and social interaction, I love the easy going nature of the black gangster speech patterns and I too use it wit ma friends at times). USA has many, many, many more cultures within it than anywhere else in the world. There is much more social displacement within ethnic communities in a foreign country (this is also why I hate it when racists blame violence on black ghettos and fail to see the wider issue of the social isolation and racism that has helped the ghetto culture to become like this).
In other words (whew, sorry), this is all cultural and statistics are the tip of the iceberg. This is why I dont really argue with statistics. They can be altered to say anything you want. They need to be used while looking at more than numbers of people compared to other numbers of people.
1. A person is less likely to attack you if they know you have a gun.
2. A person is less likely to attack anyone if they know 1 or more people around them has a gun.
3. Based on the numbers from a few posts up, deaths in the UK are proportionally similar due to homcide, the UK has more strict laws and the USA does not, and they are still similar, which means that there is just as much homicide, just a different weapon.
4. Having more guns does raise the amount of deaths caused by them, but it does NOT change the total amount of homicides by much if any (Based on the statistic above) which argues that guns do not affect homicide rates, the types of people do.
5. Guns do not murder people, people do. Whether you are pushed off a cliff, stabbed in the back, choked by a rope, poisoned or shot, you are still dead and it is still homicide.
6. (Last time based on the statistics above) Having stricter gun control laws for the UK does bring down the amount of deaths caused by guns. But, that's only because there are simply less guns around. There are still just as many deaths proportionally due to homicide.
I'm too lazy to put forward my own points right now (hours upon hours of cramming knowledge have left my brain addled) so I'm just gonna quote RationalWiki on this and say:
Anyone against gun control in the US should look away now. The US is second in national rates of deaths by firearm, with 11.3 deaths per 100,000 in total. Of these, 6.4 per 100,000 were using their largely defensive weapon of gun to check themselves out, with 4.4 using a gun to kill somebody else. Only Albania was higher, with a homicide rate of 17.6 per 100,000. Most of Western Europe is below 1 per 100,000, including the UK, with a homicide-by-firearm rate of only 0.1. Some would suggest that this is related to the number of weapons of gun per capita and is expected, but they are probably looking away right now anyway.
1. A person is less likely to attack you if they know you have a gun.
This is not common sense. This is what you have experienced.
2. A person is less likely to attack anyone if they know 1 or more people around them has a gun.
Your painting a picture of people running around the UK causing chaos because we dont have guns.
Based on the numbers from a few posts up, deaths in the UK are proportionally similar due to homcide, the UK has more strict laws and the USA does not, and they are still similar, which means that there is just as much homicide, just a different weapon.
If UK has 1.5 deaths per 100,000 and USA has 7.5 deaths per 100,000 then that is a lot more killing per same amount of population.
If we have 10 rooms of 10 people (100 overall) and say this is the UK
Then we take 50 rooms of 10 people (500 overall) and say this is USA
We then kill 1 person per UK room and 5 people per USA room.
10 people in UK die 250 people in USA die
To get the same amount of people to die in the UK you would need 240 more rooms of 10 people. In USA just two rooms of people equal the 10 rooms of deaths in the UK.
Your country, by the statistics above, is a much much much much much (thats x5 muchness) more dangerous place to live.
Statistics are not showing something here. To fully make sense of this we need to know exactly where the killings are taking place. What activity goes on in the area. How the rich poor divide. How wealthy the area is and what kind of mix of people. I think the list would have to delve far further and ask many questions about surroundings and general happiness of the population.
If the UK had guns it wouldn't just be the same amount of deaths with more being caused by guns, it would result in more deaths overall because guns are now in the mixture.
Get this idea out your head that guns are a defence because they clearly are not.
The best of both worlds would be allow bolt action rifles and pump shotguns. Handguns and automatics weapons are made for the killing humans. With rifles and shotguns you can still go hunting and defend your household. Handguns are also very concealable, very easy for an assassination or homicide.
The best of both worlds would be allow bolt action rifles and pump shotguns. Handguns and automatics weapons are made for the killing humans. With rifles and shotguns you can still go hunting and defend your household. Handguns are also very concealable, very easy for an assassination or homicide.
All this coming from a guy whose screen-name is "deserteagle."
First of all, Africa has deeper issues than guns. South Africa has very progressive laws aside from their tough gun control. It's still awful.
This is not common sense. This is what you have experienced.
Perhaps we should do a survey to find out if people are more ready to attack those with guns or those without. I assume we'd all prefer to attack the unarmed person, all things being the same. Just seems apparent based on game theory and evolutionary sociology. Regardless, a thesis statement like this makes your whole argument look weak, because it appears patently illogical.
To fully make sense of this we need to know exactly where the killings are taking place.
I agree. Your "rooms" are extraneous information making your analogy confusing. Rooms have nothing to do with the data being presented, so don't make it look like they do.
There are three types of lies in the world, guys. Don't quote them as your final proof, because searching the Internet for statistics to support your position is unproductive. Just look at the global warming thread. On that note:
Get this idea out your head that guns are a defense because they clearly are not.
I agree that ridding yourself of past assumptions is good. Try it sometime. However, expunging one side over the other won't yield the results you want. Or, to use the appropriate Xzenoism: You'd better free your mind instead. Beyond that, Nemo is more eloquent and comprehensive than I am.
Just to clear things up the homicide rates I posted where per 100,000 showing the USA to be much worse per person. Stats where from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
2010 US census: 308,745,538 2010 UK census: 58,789,194 my rounded numbers: US: about 300 million UK: about 60 million
Your rounding is incorrect. You rounded the UK numbers to the nearest ten, so 58 becomes 60. However you rounded the US numbers to the nearest hundred. And just for the record 308 becomes 300.0 not plain 300.
When you round two (or more numbers) with the goal of comparing them, you have to round both to a same nearest number (e.g. 1,10,100 etc.).
Therefore if we round 308 to the nearest 10 we have 310 not 300.0.
@Harryoconnor the site you should made me laugh, because you only pointed towards US but when you look at impoverished countries you see more homicides ect.
I assume we'd all prefer to attack the unarmed person
I dont see people with guns. I have no urge to attack them. If I knew people were walking around with guns it would make me paranoid that any aggressive situation around me, regardless of my involvement, had the ability to get messy.
Regardless, a thesis statement like this makes your whole argument look weak, because it appears patently illogical.
How is it illogical?
I agree. Your "rooms" are extraneous information making your analogy confusing. Rooms have nothing to do with the data being presented, so don't make it look like they do.
Its called an example. I was showing how the proportion of homicides between countries differed. So my example was not an analogy, it was not meant to recreate the situation, it was meant to explain how the numbers work and I think I did rather well. If you didnt understand it and thought it was a basis for my argument against guns then you are mistaken and you must re-read my post with a clear head and without presumptions which Im sure we both agree, are not helpful here.
However, expunging one side over the other won't yield the results you want.
Can you explain what Im expunging here. The only thing I can understand from this is that you are implying I have a bias against firearms and will bend statistics (my room for instance) to fit my case. Is that what you are saying?
@Harryoconnor the site you should made me laugh, because you only pointed towards US but when you look at impoverished countries you see more homicides ect.
I was comparing rich countries as it makes no sense to compare rich- poor as poor countries will have higher homicide rates. The point was out of all developed the USA has the worst homicide rate and the least gun laws. The UK is slighlty poorer per person so should hae a worse homicide rate but due to gun laws you have around one fith of the chance of being killed in UK then USA.
The vast majority of gun crimes and homicides are linked to gangs/mafia. Hence I personally believe that if the State manages to reduce the organized crime activity the gun violence will decrease (likewise the criminal offenses, particularly homicides). After that stricter gun laws can be imposed.
