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.
I know, let's divide the country into two parts, one for gun owners, where they can shoot at each other to their heart's content, and one for people who hate guns and where guns would not be tolerated. We need to create a safe place of non-violence for people who would agree to a strict weapons ban. If there were a state that banned all guns I would move there. I do not feel safe in this country because of gun violence and crazy people addicted to lethal weapons. My opinion is that anyone who would shoot a gun is inherently sick, unless they are at war and have orders to do it. If you need to hunt for food, guns are cheating, too easy, you are a wimp. I want to stay as far away from gun-toting sickos as I can. And anyone who owns a gun is a coward in my book. The more guns you own the more of a coward you are.
Go ahead. I'll bet you a ton of cash that the side without guns would be obliterated and over run by criminals in short order.
It has worked well in Australia, let's do the same in America. It seems like conservatives do not mind regular mass shootings taking place in this country as it has happened.
The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.
So gun homicides fell, ok, what did overall homicide rates do? Did they fall? Well seven years after Port Arthur they began a downwards trend, is that gun control, or did Australia change their criminal laws, or police procedures? I don't know, but I do know that in the UK the 2005 downwards trend coincides far more with increased police funding, changes in arrest rules, and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act of 2004 than it does with the Firearms Amendment Acts 1997. Just sayin...
I also know that New Zealand doesn't have an issue with guns, or homicide, or mass shootings and it's very similar culturally to Australia.
What I'd like to know is what is it about "gun homicides" that makes people think it's interesting? If someone is killed illegally, what's interesting about someone using a gun? Would Oscar Pistorius not be in prison if he hadn't shot Reeva Steenkamp but beaten her to death with one of his artificial limbs? Would she be less dead maybe mostly dead, can we get Billy Crystal and Carol Kane to do the mostly dead scene from Princess Bride and she'll recover? Or is there no difference, in reality, it's an artificial differentiation that really makes no difference?
"Gun crime" in the UK went up after their ban, what makes you think it will work in the US? Just admit it, you don't care about saving lives or preventing crime you just want to ban guns.
Let's compare....
UK... 0.05 homicides by firearm per 100,000 for the five years up until 2011.
It has worked well in Australia, let's do the same in America. It seems like conservatives do not mind regular mass shootings taking place in this country as it has happened.
In fact, most developed countries saw their murder rate decline significantly during this period.
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.
