Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So it appears that Britain actually ended up with fewer homocides than before "functionally banning guns".
Fewer homicides. Not fewer gun homicides, and your statistics are about all homicides, not specifically gun homicides.
Keep on moving the goalposts then.
You specifically said "lowest since 1963". Now you are talking about "trending down"?
Yes. Homicide in the US is at its lowest level since 1963, using 2011 data. Much as the data you provided, mine included all homicides, not just gun homicides.
I'll let you regroup and figure out what you're actually trying to say, if you like.
Kilkrazy wrote: Your point is that the widespread availability of guns has reduced the murder rate.
That's not my point. My point was that while the murder rate has gone down in Great Britain after guns were functionally banned, the murder rate in the US has also declined despite widespread loosening of restrictions on gun ownership. Perhaps, just maybe, the availability of guns doesn't have as much to do with it as some might like to pretend.
You asked for evidence if the gun laws in Britain have resulted in fewer homicides (all kind). I provided a link saying that they are at the lowest number since before the ban. You then talked about that our overall rates are down as well.
Thus concludes part one.
After you posted the overall rates, Killkrazy made a point to talk about gun-violence specifically, posting a link showing that gun violence is up.
You then said that you don't draw the same conclusion from the link he provided. I posted the number showing we went from 6,158 to 11,624. You then said that nobody was talking specifically about guns, even though that was the thing Killkrazy was focusing on.
I am fully aware that we were talking about homicides in general, until Killkrazy posted a link talking specifically about gun violence and making a point about "Yes violent crime is down, but gun violence is up".
I can keep up with the flow of the conversation, thank you.
You asked for evidence if the gun laws in Britain have resulted in fewer homicides (all kind). I provided a link saying that they are at the lowest number since before the ban. You then talked about that our overall rates are down as well.
Thus concludes part one.
After you posted the overall rates, Killkrazy made a point to talk about gun-violence specifically, posting a link showing that gun violence is up.
You then said that you don't draw the same conclusion from the link he provided. I posted the number showing we went from 6,158 to 11,624. You then said that nobody was talking specifically about guns, even though that was the thing Killkrazy was focusing on.
I am fully aware that we were talking about homicides in general, until Killkrazy posted a link talking specifically about gun violence and making a point about "Yes violent crime is down, but gun violence is up".
I can keep up with the flow of the conversation, thank you.
And even in that regard, gun violence specifically is up from 1964, but it's also trending down. As I said. It peaked a couple decades ago.
There just aren't numbers extant out there that suggest gun violence is becoming more of a problem in the US rather than less of one.
Kilkrazy wrote: Your point is that the widespread availability of guns has reduced the murder rate.
That's not my point. My point was that while the murder rate has gone down in Great Britain after guns were functionally banned, the murder rate in the US has also declined despite widespread loosening of restrictions on gun ownership. Perhaps, just maybe, the availability of guns doesn't have as much to do with it as some might like to pretend.
Does that mean that the USA is inherently a violent society?
(To explain the murder rate in the US being more than triple the UK's.)
MrMerlin wrote: He was able to steal the rifle because his mon was fething irresponsible and just had it lying around, and she must have known about his problems. With better regulations, the mother would have been required to lock her guns away and oh look! He couldn't have gotten to them in that case!
You know how she stored her guns? I don't. Where did you find this information?
Well, her son was able to take the guns, so I assume they weren't properly stored... or else he wouldn't jave been able to get to them
all it takes to kill someone with a gun is to aim and pull the trigger,
I assure you, in all sincerity, this is incorrect.
In what way is this incorrect? Given you are a psycho and want to kill, that is exactly what it takes to kill someone; load, aim properly, and shoot.
Sure, ban-all-guns is not the solution to all the problems, but regulating firearms would improve the situation quite a bit
Not really. I haven't seen a single serious proposal that would have affected Lanza's ability to pull off his murder spree.
Why do you think better regulations wouldn't work? They would have thoroughly checked his mom, and required her to lock away her guns (in Germany, the police visits you and checks if your guns are properly locked away and nobody but you can get to them)
Frazzled wrote:
MrMerlin wrote: And oh Frazzled, do you really think a guy with a bat can kill as many kids than a guy with a fething rifle?? all it takes to kill someone with a gun is to aim and pull the trigger, with a bat it's all close and personal, takes longer, and is not near as deadly. Do you know that in the same week as the Sany Hook massacre, there was a chinese douche who did the same thing in a chinese elementary school, but he didn't have access to guns, so he had to resort to a knife. And oh look, he didn't manage to kill a single child! He was just as crazy as the sandy hook killer, but without guns, the nutjobs actually do inflict less damage!
Sure, ban-all-guns is not the solution to all the problems, but regulating firearms would improve the situation quite a bit
When the kids are trapped in a room hell yea I do.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
MrMerlin wrote: Well, her son was able to take the guns, so I assume they weren't properly stored... or else he wouldn't jave been able to get to them
You must have been a model kid, then. I knew how to get at all sorts of stuff my parents didn't want me to get at growing up.
Why do you think better regulations wouldn't work? They would have thoroughly checked his mom, and required her to lock away her guns (in Germany, the police visits you and checks if your guns are properly locked away and nobody but you can get to them)
That type of regulation - where the police come by to check on your guns - will simply never, ever happen here. It has zero chance of occurring while we operate under the Constitution as currently written it. It is not in the realm of a serious proposal.
MrMerlin wrote: Well, her son was able to take the guns, so I assume they weren't properly stored... or else he wouldn't jave been able to get to them
You must have been a model kid, then. I knew how to get at all sorts of stuff my parents didn't want me to get at growing up.
I assume you also knew how to open a safe with 6 digit combination lock?
Why do you think better regulations wouldn't work? They would have thoroughly checked his mom, and required her to lock away her guns (in Germany, the police visits you and checks if your guns are properly locked away and nobody but you can get to them)
That type of regulation - where the police come by to check on your guns - will simply never, ever happen here. It has zero chance of occurring while we operate under the Constitution as currently written it. It is not in the realm of a serious proposal.
Well, then I am truly sorry for you guys. I guess you'll have to live with the occaisional killing spree and about 600 firearm accidents every year in that case.
Seaward wrote: [That type of regulation - where the police come by to check on your guns - will simply never, ever happen here. It has zero chance of occurring while we operate under the Constitution as currently written it. It is not in the realm of a serious proposal.
The measure would also require applicants to have an on-site inspection and evaluation of the household where the firearm would be located.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
And multiple adults went there to help. He would have had a harder time stopping 3-4 adults with a bat.
Guns make it a lot easier to kill people. That's why we conceal carry guns, not baseball bats.
d-usa wrote: Guns make it a lot easier to kill people. That's why we conceal carry guns, not baseball bats.
Speak for yourself!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kilkrazy wrote: Is it a good idea for an inherently violent society to be provided with large amounts of guns?
How is that at all relevant? Whether it's a good idea or not, it's the reality. Pie-in-the-sky notions of "just getting rid of them" are simply not applicable to this particular plane of existence, for a whole host of reasons.
*We have open borders here. Criminal cartels have easy access and are here now. one border is adjacent top a country where 50,000 people were murdered last year.
*Criminals are not going to turn in their guns. Formerly law abiding citizens will not turn in their firearms either. Massed attempts by police to enter homes is unconstitutional and could spark civl unrest up to and including a full on civil war.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
There's far too many of them for it to be even approaching realistic. You might, might, MIGHT make a dent ten generations from now, but we have, by many estimates, more guns than the UK has humans by a factor of three.
The majority of gun homicides are gang/drug related, and people involved in crime are unlikely to turn in their guns just because the government says they have to. The government already says they can't own them. All you'd do with a complete nationwide ban would be to take the most effective means of defense away from law-abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing to get guns out of the hands of the people who do the overwhelming majority of the killing with firearms in this country. Sandy Hook and Aurora are tragic, but they're so extremely rare, no matter how much they're sensationalized, that they don't move the needle on firearm crime statistics.
It would be blatantly unconstitutional, and if you think only a small minority of gun owners would be the only ones taking action of some sort or another against such a ban, you don't know your opinion polls. Support for the right to own a handgun is at 75% in this country. Support for keeping even so-called "assault weapons" legal is at 51%. The NRA has a 54% favorability rating. Those are all solid majorities - some shockingly so - despite the fact that less than half the US public owns a firearm.
It would be a bureaucratic nightmare that we could not in any way afford. You would need thousands, if not tens of thousands, of new enforcement agents. You would need massive staffing increases at the ATF, FBI, DOJ in general, and every law enforcement agency in the country. We're a bit cash-strapped at the moment.
Do you want me to go on or what? It's simply never going to happen.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
Oh come on Frazzled. The chinese kids were trapped too, and the knife-guy managed to wound 20.
That's 20 6-year-old kids each. The ones that got the gun died. The ones that got knifed didn't.
If the Sandy-Hook guy hadn't had a gun, and if he'd gone with a knife or bat, things wouln't have been near as bloody.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
Oh come on Frazzled. The chinese kids were trapped too, and the knife-guy managed to wound 20.
That's 20 6-year-old kids each. The ones that got the gun died. The ones that got knifed didn't.
If the Sandy-Hook guy hadn't had a gun, and if he'd gone with a knife or bat, things wouln't have been near as bloody.
Please show me the article where the kids were trapped in a room.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
Oh come on Frazzled. The chinese kids were trapped too, and the knife-guy managed to wound 20.
That's 20 6-year-old kids each. The ones that got the gun died. The ones that got knifed didn't.
If the Sandy-Hook guy hadn't had a gun, and if he'd gone with a knife or bat, things wouln't have been near as bloody.
I think you're over-estimating the crushing power of a bat... I know from first hand experience that a bat hitting your skull hurts, and it doesn't take much to crack the skull, I can still feel the line where it cracked slightly and then fused.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
Oh come on Frazzled. The chinese kids were trapped too, and the knife-guy managed to wound 20.
That's 20 6-year-old kids each. The ones that got the gun died. The ones that got knifed didn't.
If the Sandy-Hook guy hadn't had a gun, and if he'd gone with a knife or bat, things wouln't have been near as bloody.
Please show me the article where the kids were trapped in a room.
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
Currently debating whether to study for my exams or paint some Deathwing
And I disagree. He wouldn't have been able to kill 20, no way. It takes much longer to beat someone to death with a bat than to shoot them in the head. Guns are way more efficient at killing than bats and knifes are... guess why all the wars in recent history have been fought with guns.... because its easier and quicker to kill someone with a rifle instead of a sword!
And I believe the chinese knife psycho had the kids trapped in a room as well.... yet he didn't manage to kill any of them
You're brilliant. A gun is easier than a bat.
Having said that,
1) The elementary school kids were trapped in a room by him.
2) They were elementary school kids.
Oh come on Frazzled. The chinese kids were trapped too, and the knife-guy managed to wound 20.
That's 20 6-year-old kids each. The ones that got the gun died. The ones that got knifed didn't.
If the Sandy-Hook guy hadn't had a gun, and if he'd gone with a knife or bat, things wouln't have been near as bloody.
Please show me the article where the kids were trapped in a room.
I mostly read German news, so that might not work.
I think he would have done way less damage with a bat. And regulating guns (as well as improving the mental health care system, educating kids better and doing something against poverty) would signifcantly improve your crime stats.
Anyway, I don't really want to continue arguing about gun violence, there are other things that I should be doing, and our argument isn't leading anywhere anyway. Everything has already been said 20 times in the numerous other gun violence threads, and nobody's gonna change their opinions anytime soon.
So, have a nice day Frazzled and Seaward and everyone else
Goddammit, whembly. This entire thread has made it thus far without you posting ludicrous conspiracy theories from insanity respositories thus far, and you had to go and ruin that.
Just so we're clear, this is the advertising reel for Herman Cain's webcast network.
Even Glenn Beck cannot compete with that level of stupid; and if I didn't know otherwise I'd swear it was a Tim & Eric sketch. Please, please stop posting conspiracy-theory garbage.
