Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I expected, the hoplophobes would ignore the data.
The real simple truth is that countries with low rates of firearm ownership have higher rates of violent crime. Countries that have banned some or all guns have seen rates of violent crime increase following the ban.
If you want to increase the chance that your daughter is raped, ban guns.
If you want to increase the chance that your wife is robbed at knife point, ban guns.
If you want to increase the chance that your teenage son has his skull bashed in with a baseball bat by a gangbanger, ban guns.
If you want to increase the chance that your family is a victim of a home invasion robbery, ban guns.
Well.....it's a good thing that here in the states with all our guns that we don't have violent crime, no ones daughter ever gets raped, women are never robbed at knife point, baseball bats are never used as weapons and best of all there's never any home invasions !!! Having as many weapons as possible is a complete success !!! More guns for everyone. !!!
This thread has really outlived its usefulness, I just want to say this, look at NYC, and the low crime rate they, have, then look at Mississippi, with their high crime, and weak laws, and NYC is at a disadvantage! But for the love of god, stop going back and forth!
And crime didn't seem to be correlated at all with gun ownership rates. That suggests purchasing a gun doesn't have an effect on overall crime rates, which include both violent and non-violent crimes.
"We can show that guns don't make a nation safer," Bangalore told LiveScience.
so is this suggesting that higher gun ownership rates don't mean higher crime rates?
If I read it correctly it's suggesting the presence of "MORE GUNS!" has no effect on crime rates one way or the other and the mere presence of guns in the home = more death. In almost every case not some intruder but a family member or friend gets blasted. That's irrefutable. Just like the death penalty not having any effect on people killing other people. And in the case of crime, meth heads looking for jewelry in Texas or in NJ really aren't thinking too much about who is packing.
There's a theory out there that crime has dropped in last 20 years as more lead has been removed from our environment. Studies do suggest it.
The curve is much the same in all the countries these papers have studied. Lead was withdrawn first from paint and then from petrol at different times in different places (beginning in the 1970s in the US in the case of petrol, and the 1990s in many parts of Europe), yet despite these different times and different circumstances, the pattern is the same: violent crime peaks around 20 years after lead pollution peaks. The crime rates in big and small cities in the US, once wildly different, have now converged, also some 20 years after the phase-out.
We went over this 10 pages ago. In modern democratic societies we have rights and limits on those rights. If you want lawlessness & "i'll do whatever i please" there are some fine African & Mideast countries you could move to.
You go. I was born here and intend to stay and defend this nation against those who would destroy it.
All the examples you quoted above may be considered extreme, however, they should also alert anyone with common sense just how sensitive and concerned that everyone has become in schools and the workplace to even borderline inappropriate behavior involving guns. As long as the NRA squashes any effort to improve safety and government doesn't act to reduce the growing threat of more mass shootings your going to find school systems and businesses taking all measures possible to reduce their liability should something occur. This is what happens when an obvious growing problem/threat exists and no one exercises common sense to mitigate the threat. Compromise is needed but the NRA and gun nuts can't even spell that let alone consider it.
Neither the NRA nor any supporter of gun rights supports "inappropriate" behavior involving guns. The issue is what constitutes "inappropiate" behavior. Those who want stricter laws on guns don't even focus on behavior. They want laws that restrict everyone's rights, regardless if the data indicates such laws do any good. For example, the background checks and banning of guns to anyone who has ever been treated for a mental illness, even though studies by professionals show that the mentally ill are no more violent or dangerous than anyone else, and in fact are much more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of crime and violence. Or that even the CDC concluded that there is no solid evidence that stricter gun laws reduce the rate of gun violence. Those people who are "sensitive and concerned" should research the hard data on guns and crime and not keep using anecdotes as evidence, which is their typical tactic now.
Neither the NRA nor any supporter of gun rights supports "inappropriate" behavior involving guns. The issue is what constitutes "inappropiate" behavior. Those who want stricter laws on guns don't even focus on behavior. They want laws that restrict everyone's rights, regardless if the data indicates such laws do any good. For example, the background checks and banning of guns to anyone who has ever been treated for a mental illness, even though studies by professionals show that the mentally ill are no more violent or dangerous than anyone else, and in fact are much more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of crime and violence. Or that even the CDC concluded that there is no solid evidence that stricter gun laws reduce the rate of gun violence. Those people who are "sensitive and concerned" should research the hard data on guns and crime and not keep using anecdotes as evidence, which is their typical tactic now.
Since you, the NRA and supporters of gun rights seem having a difficult time trying to figure out what constitutes "inappropriate behavior" involving guns lets start with something really simple like using a military assault style weapon to slaughter 20 innocent school children ? Very inappropriate behavior by a mentally ill individual whom you feel studies verify are no more violent than anyone else. I'm not a "professional" but it's my guess that the shooters in all these mass shootings have some type of mental illness.....but that's only an uneducated guess !!! The notion that unlimited restrictions on guns make life safer makes about as much sense as unlimited speed on highways makes driving safer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
