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.

 easysauce wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Spoiler:

 djones520 wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:
I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.

That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.

This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.

And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.

So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.

Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.

I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.

So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.

Rest of the western world.

so again, ignoring the fact that gun crime went up in places like britain after the handgun ban?

when asked for proof, you just make a comment like the rest of the world actually has less gun crime because of their gun control, when the exact opposite is true factually.

"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html#ixzz2sBk3aZCn

"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.

Americans, you have a problem with guns.

Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.

That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.

Please.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.

Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.

Considering this is one of the very first results when searching for "Parents prosecuted for firearms related deaths", I think my argument still stands.

There definitely are prosecutions but by and large it seems to be restricted to incidents of toddlers to preteens.

What is your argument exactly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.

Americans, you have a problem with guns.

Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.

That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.

Please.

That's cute. But, usually when we make statements like that, we provide "evidence" for our claims.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.

Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.

Considering this is one of the very first results when searching for "Parents prosecuted for firearms related deaths", I think my argument still stands.

There definitely are prosecutions but by and large it seems to be restricted to incidents of toddlers to preteens.

What is your argument exactly?

He started out saying there was no prosecution for kids getting ahold of guns and the tragedy that goes with it. Now he's changing his stance to teens.

Nuggz this evidence is pretty easy to find all you have to do is Google "gun violence by nation" or "number of firearms per capita per nation".

 easysauce wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Spoiler:

 djones520 wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:
I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.

That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.

This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.

And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.

So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.

Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.

I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.

So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.

Rest of the western world.

so again, ignoring the fact that gun crime went up in places like britain after the handgun ban?

when asked for proof, you just make a comment like the rest of the world actually has less gun crime because of their gun control, when the exact opposite is true factually.

"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html#ixzz2sBk3aZCn

"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

You keep on bringing this article up. It's almost 12 years old. If you're going to make an argument, try to use statistics from this decade maybe?

Relapse wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.

Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.

Considering this is one of the very first results when searching for "Parents prosecuted for firearms related deaths", I think my argument still stands.

There definitely are prosecutions but by and large it seems to be restricted to incidents of toddlers to preteens.

What is your argument exactly?

He started out saying there was no prosecution for kids getting ahold of guns and the tragedy that goes with it. Now he's changing his stance to teens.

Actually Relapse, I said that it's INTERESTING that there is no prosecution for parents of teens.

If I wanted to "change my stance", I'd note that prosecution does not simply mean "charges are filed" but rather that an actual verdict of "Guilty" or "Innocent" is put forward in the case by a judge or jury--or that the charges are later dismissed.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Nuggz this evidence is pretty easy to find all you have to do is Google "gun violence by nation" or "number of firearms per capita per nation".

Gun violence in America is largely restricted to certain areas, occurring mainly amongst certain "cultures."

There is far more evidence for a cultural problem than there is for a "gun problem." The country as a whole doesn't have a "gun problem." Certain parts of the US have a cultural problem that manifests in many forms of violence and crime, one of which is gun-related violence.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Who is committing the majority of gun-related crime? Black males between the ages of 18-49. See figures 17 and 18. Let me preempt any accusations of racism by saying that my intent here is not a all to suggest that there is anything inherently wrong with black males that predisposes them to violence. I am merely pointing out the FACT that this population commits a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

See also Figures 25a and 25b. Amongst family members, incidences of homicides using firearms are actually dropping relative to cases involving other murder weapons.

If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?

 Cheesecat wrote:
If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?

Only if you want to be called a racist.

 Cheesecat wrote:
If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?

Yes.

But they won't. No tin foil here, but (a) their goal is not to reduce violence, but to disarm Americans, and (b) no politician is going to adopt a platform that involves acknowledging the serious crime and violence problem in the black community (because thatsracist.jpg).

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's a framework in place to prevent teenagers from legally buying guns, certainly.

There is however precedent of parents/adults being prosecuted for providing alcohol to minors or minors getting access to alcohol in the house when something "tragic" happens. I can't think of any cases of prosecution when something similar happens with improperly secured firearms.

There might be cases where such a thing happened but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.

Prosecution for straw purchases cover this quite well.

 djones520 wrote:
Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.

Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.

Firearm controls; extensive background checks, local LEOs can also prevent purchases. Disqualification for felons etc.
Alcohol purchases; must be over 21

Nope, not even close

 Cheesecat wrote:
If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?

A lot of these firearms are unlawfully held, and amnesties for surrendering them have been help prior so what would you suggest?

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:
It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.

Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.

As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.

US murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 4.7

Swedish murder rate 2012 per 100,000: 2.479

0/10, try again, thanks for playing.

Just for giggles... does Sweden have the same sorts of problems with gangs, drugs crimes, cartel, and the likes to areas in the US?

To me, that isn't comparing apples to apples.

0/10, try again... thanks for playing.

There's two countries in the EU that have higher average murder rates from 2008-2010 than the US had in 2010 (couldn't find a specific year for the EU), and that's Lithuania and Estonia. I'm pretty sure there's organized crime in Europe too.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.

Americans, you have a problem with guns.

Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.

That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.

Please.

For a moderator, who is speaking with a Canadian no less, that is an awful large brush that you're using to tar everyone with

How many were suicide by cop? Just curious

 djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?

Only if you want to be called a racist.

Well it would be racist if you change gun laws for black people (plus laws should be based around fairness and it would be unfair to change gun laws based on race as you have no control over you race) but it wouldn't be if you look in to other external factors that may influence violence in

that community such as education, wealth, social status, living standards, health, etc find ways to improve if for them.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?

Only if you want to be called a racist.

Well it would be racist if you change gun laws for black people (plus laws should be based around fairness and it would be unfair to change gun laws based on race as you have no control over you race) but it wouldn't be if you look in to other external factors that may influence violence in

that community such as education, wealth, social status, living standards, health, etc find ways to improve if for them.

I'm sure there are many factors, but I primarily place the blame on the black community's leadership. Every time an issue comes up, their reaction is to get the community riled up with righteous indignation.

The violent crime issue is just one of many of these issues, but it's a big one. The problem: young black males are killing other young black males. Their solution? Blame guns. Heaven forbid they place the blame on the perpetrators...

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?

Only if you want to be called a racist.

Well it would be racist if you change gun laws for black people (plus laws should be based around fairness and it would be unfair to change gun laws based on race as you have no control over you race) but it wouldn't be if you look in to other external factors that may influence violence in

that community such as education, wealth, social status, living standards, health, etc find ways to improve if for them.

I'm sure there are many factors, but I primarily place the blame on the black community's leadership. Every time an issue comes up, their reaction is to get the community riled up with righteous indignation.

The violent crime issue is just one of many of these issues, but it's a big one. The problem: young black males are killing other young black males. Their solution? Blame guns. Heaven forbid they place the blame on the perpetrators...

Well if we white people would just stop being so damn privileged, maybe they wouldn't kill each other like that. *sarcasm*

Privilige mentality is all over the dang place

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?

Yes.

But they won't. No tin foil here, but (a) their goal is not to reduce violence, but to disarm Americans, and (b) no politician is going to adopt a platform that involves acknowledging the serious crime and violence problem in the black community (because thatsracist.jpg).

I don't think there's really any politician who wants to disarm America they may want to add more restrictions but I doubt there's any that want a total gun ban.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?

Yes.

But they won't. No tin foil here, but (a) their goal is not to reduce violence, but to disarm Americans, and (b) no politician is going to adopt a platform that involves acknowledging the serious crime and violence problem in the black community (because thatsracist.jpg).

I don't think there's really any politician who wants to disarm America they may want to add more restrictions but I doubt there's any that want a total gun ban.

Feinsteinn is on the record for saying she wants all the guns gone if I recall correctly.

But yes, a total ban would be political suicide. That's why they take baby steps.

Having guns didn't stop the state from taking your gold, what makes you think it'll protect you from anything in the future?

 Kilkrazy wrote:


And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.

Americans, you have a problem with guns.

Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.

That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.

Please.

Probably one of the most facepalm worthy posts you've ever made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Having guns didn't stop the state from taking your gold, what makes you think it'll protect you from anything in the future?

You guys should remember how well our guns stopped an overreaching government.

 djones520 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Having guns didn't stop the state from taking your gold, what makes you think it'll protect you from anything in the future?

You guys should remember how well our guns stopped an overreaching government.

I think you're forgetting the whole "France" part...

I've no problems owning fire arms. My weapons are secured. My ammo secured. My battle rattle is secured. My documentation with my weapons are on hand. So what problem did I over look? Besides in the future live ammo will be in some serious demands due to the Apocalypse

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Having guns didn't stop the state from taking your gold, what makes you think it'll protect you from anything in the future?

You guys should remember how well our guns stopped an overreaching government.

I think you're forgetting the whole "France" part...

The French wouldn't have been needed had our Congress understood how to fight the British Navy. The British Navy was petrified of our small boat capability, we just never took advantage of that. We could have ended the war in the first year had we capitalized our strengths properly.

The EU posters arguing this, it's important to consider how different the situation is in the US. Widespread civilian firearm ownership is far less common here than in the US, and historically was way less common. It is much harder to get the cat back in the bag, so comparing the US to Europe isn't helpful. It's also unhelpful to treat the "US" as one monolithic block with regard to gun laws.

Based on the death stats, there seems to be a problem with gun violence in the US. It would be more interesting and productive to look at what causes a culture of violence in a nation rather than to restrict the tools of that violence, in my view. (That said I am definitely pro gun control in countries where it can actually make a difference, I am just sceptical it would work as well as many of us on this side of the pond imagine).

 djones520 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Having guns didn't stop the state from taking your gold, what makes you think it'll protect you from anything in the future?

You guys should remember how well our guns stopped an overreaching government.

They really helped in the paddy fields a few years later? Amiright?

Ridiculous point to make, but don't let me stop you from dragging up WW2 and disrespecting veterans from around the world.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Having guns didn't stop the state from taking your gold, what makes you think it'll protect you from anything in the future?

You guys should remember how well our guns stopped an overreaching government.

They really helped in the paddy fields a few years later? Amiright?

Ridiculous point to make, but don't let me stop you from dragging up WW2 and disrespecting veterans from around the world.

Oh yeah the righteous indignation...

Referencing the Revolutionary War for one, in a joking manner as the smiley would indicate. Secondly, I'm a veteran myself, of a family of multi-generational veterants, and grandson of a WW2 vet, so get over yourself if you think I'd ever intend to "disrespect" any vets out there.

And talking about disrespect, you go and make a joke about the tens of thousands dead, and hundred thousands wounded vets.

Not really mate. I highlighted the ridiculousness of you dragging a "we won WW2" comment into a thread about gun violence in America. So me pointing out that those guns didn't help in Vietnam is in the same vein.

If it was about the Revolutionary war then fine, that's just not what I took it as. Strangely enough that's not what's imprinted on my mind when I think about overreaching governments.

Did private gun ownership really help in the Revolutionary war? I would have thought proliferation came after you'd won?

 Medium of Death wrote:
Not really mate. I highlighted the ridiculousness of you dragging a "we won WW2" comment into a thread about gun violence in America. So me pointing out that those guns didn't help in Vietnam is in the same vein.

If it was about the Revolutionary war then fine, that's just not what I took it as. Strangely enough that's not what's imprinted on my mind when I think about overreaching governments.

Did private gun ownership really help in the Revolutionary war? I would have thought proliferation came after you'd won?

The official firing war started when a British Company was dispatched to confiscate firearms from the citizenry. The militia was a major part of our military might. Even those who served as regulars, where usually lugging around their own muskets that they brought to the fight with them.

We fought that war with the firearms that we owned.