justincredible;1384996 wrote:They have looser classifications of violent crime, yes. Ben Swann did a Reality Check segment on it and with an apples to apples comparison their violent crime rate is still twice ours. That's significant.

You seems to focus only on the negative when it comes to guns. How many lives are SAVED by a citizen with a gun each day?

Not more than are lost. A person is more likely to kill themselves, a family member or an innocent person than take down a criminal or repel a government invasion.

Can the number of people who own guns even be restricted?

justincredible;1385039 wrote:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

Since 1992 essentially all rates of crime have decreased year over year. This includes violent crime, murder/manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, etc. At the same time gun sales have increased year over year. How is crime going down with more guns being sold? I don't understand it.

Correlation does not equal causation.
More guns does not mean less crimes.
It is more complicated than that.

ptown_trojans_1;1385171 wrote:Correlation does not equal causation.
More guns does not mean less crimes.
It is more complicated than that.

But more guns should mean more crime, right? Because the point of gun control is to limit the number of guns and therefor limit the amount of crime, right?

BoatShoes;1385129 wrote:Not more than are lost.

Can you provide a link to back that up?

justincredible;1385177 wrote:But more guns should mean more crime, right? Because the point of gun control is to limit the number of guns and therefor limit the amount of crime, right?

Nope, again, I do not think one can link the two in the increase or decrease of crime.
If you want to look at the stats and the decrease of crime you need to factor in:
1. Location
2. Socio-economic trends
3. Education level
4. Police presence
5. Drug rates
6. and many other factors that will give you a clearer picture of what makes the crime rates go up and down.
More guns may make crime go down in say rural Ohio, but may make it go up in say Chicago or Oakland.
Guns are just one part of the larger picture.

WOW! Fact Fact and More Facts


http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

"Why is the violent crime rate in the UK so much higher that the violent crime rate in the US?"

A couple of thoughts on this:

1) Economy has been worse than the U.S. for some time now, not that the U.S. economy is good - but rather that in the UK it is terrible (along with the Eurozone).

2) Alcoholism is a public sport. It isn't uncommon for some bars to welcome patrons in the morning and have them spend the entire day getting sauced...we've all seen drunks in the U.S. but it pales in comparison to the UK folks. It is a significant problem there - and some sort of crime is sure to follow.

Culture is a huge factor in crime, and I'd say more of a faction than guns.
But, guns get the spotlight.

ptown_trojans_1;1386174 wrote:Culture is a huge factor in crime, and I'd say more of a faction than guns.
But, guns get the spotlight.

Yep.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

For the challenged liberal media, and others ....

"A study by the Department of Justice’s research wing, the National Institute of Justice, has the feds admitting that so-called “assault weapons” are not a major contributor to gun crime.

The study also concluded those weapons are not a major factor in deaths caused by firearms, nor would an “assault weapons” ban be effective.
“The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions,” it said. “Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”
The report finds no significant link between “assault weapons” and murders.
“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicides and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence,” the report said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/feds-admit-gun-laws-...

BoatShoes;1343102 wrote:lol...it makes a difference...

What makes you think a depressed average man could take out 20 kindegartners regardless of what was available to him? Seems considerably easier to do when you can hop on your computer and get guns and body armor in the time it takes for pornhub to load.

I can do that with weed or steroids if I want to (I have with the latter). Not sure why guns would be so different. Legal or not, I doubt we'd see a difference in what was "available to him."

This guy used a shotgun. What should we do now?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CALIFORNIA_SHOOTING_SPREE?SITE=OHFIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-20-03-52-18

WebFire;1392829 wrote:This guy used a shotgun. What should we do now?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CALIFORNIA_SHOOTING_SPREE?SITE=OHFIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-20-03-52-18

Biden is all for shotguns

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/19/biden-gives-parenting-advice-reloads-shotgun-line/?hpt=hp_bn3

O-Trap;1392170 wrote:I can do that with weed or steroids if I want to (I have with the latter). Not sure why guns would be so different. Legal or not, I doubt we'd see a difference in what was "available to him."

I feel like libertarians really overestimate it when they say things are "still available" when they're illegal. Yes, this is ultimately true. But, it is a lot harder in several cases. For example, it is risky to get anabolic steroids a lot of times, for example. It takes effort to get good sources, etc.

Other countries have sucessfully erased the supply of guns. Obviously America is different as I have said but the idea that it "can't be done" is incorrect...that prohibition is always and every where ineffective regardless of the commodity isn't right.

WebFire;1392829 wrote:This guy used a shotgun. What should we do now?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CALIFORNIA_SHOOTING_SPREE?SITE=OHFIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-20-03-52-18

This is why just an "assault weapons" ban is not the way to go if you're going to be serious about gun control.

But what I find more interesting is the background of the shooter....

unemployed and marginally in college...just floating through life.

Personally, I think combating unemployment with a serious full employment program that will improve the lots of these types of folks who go mad and start shooting would be a preferable step over gun control.

BoatShoes;1392870 wrote:I feel like libertarians really overestimate it when they say things are "still available" when they're illegal. Yes, this is ultimately true. But, it is a lot harder in several cases. For example, it is risky to get anabolic steroids a lot of times, for example. It takes effort to get good sources, etc.

Other countries have sucessfully erased the supply of guns. Obviously America is different as I have said but the idea that it "can't be done" is incorrect...that prohibition is always and every where ineffective regardless of the commodity isn't right.

Who has erased the supply of guns? Certainly not the country you always try to point to (Australia)

Columbine survivor Evan Todd writes an open letter to the President - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/20/columbine-survivor-pens-bold-open-letter-to-obama-rejecting-gun-control-whose-side-are-you-on/

I recommend you take 3 minutes to read it. Here's two interesting questions he asks of the Confiscator-In-Chief:

Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?

LJ;1392874 wrote:Who has erased the supply of guns? Certainly not the country you always try to point to (Australia)

The Japanese. Who I also always point to.

BoatShoes;1392901 wrote:The Japanese. Who I also always point to.

As I understand it, Japan has always had pretty low numbers in gun violence, even when guns were legal.

This was something I ran across last night. If the numeric correlations are true, it does seem at least somewhat compelling to test. It's not an unbiased source, though, so whether or not they are true isn't something I'd assume just yet.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/japans-low-murder-rate-is-due-to-its-immigration-policies-not-its-gun-control/

BoatShoes;1392901 wrote:The Japanese. Who I also always point to.

Oh?

http://ausgunowners.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/a-japanese-gun-culture/

LJ;1392920 wrote:Oh?

http://ausgunowners.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/a-japanese-gun-culture/

Your really lame source claims there's as much 50,000 illegal guns in Japananese. For a population of 150 million that is effectively "erased". But I suppose you would only be satisfied by 0. :rolleyes:

BoatShoes;1392928 wrote:Your really lame source claims there's as much 50,000 illegal guns in Japananese. For a population of 150 million that is effectively "erased". But I suppose you would only be satisfied by 0. :rolleyes:

Right.....:rolleyes:

Btw, really lame source? The Asahi Shimbun is considered the largest and moat respectable news publication in Japan, LOL