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.
If gun control doesn't work, why does every other first world nation have gun control and lower homicide rates?
All depends on how you establish your statistics. Do some research into how these statistics are misleading in such claims as you make. There are so many factors and differences between countries that effect a reasonable evaluation between them to which most statistical analysis fail to evaluate. The problem with statistics is that they are very susceptible to bias.
I am a gun owner and have assault rifles and I have to admit that selling guns in the parking lot of the local wal mart with out so much as taking down the guys car plate is not going to end well some of the time. I would say that many times its a legal transaction, but it only takes one to get through. Why can't gun owners say that even if they don't want to ban assault weapons, at the very minimum we should all agree on is that there should be a federal law that mandates all guns transactions go through a licensed FFL dealer and a back ground check is done. Will this stop all crime? You would be a fool to think it would. But it may stop some. We have to plug that hole. Its just stupid to require BGC and federal forms filled out and ID taken on dealer sales then you can walk to the table next to the dealer at the gun show and buy from a private individual without so much as as a how old are you.
This is what I meant when I said hard ass idiots in the gun culture are going to get all our guns taken away if we don't start to work on common ground. This Republican we give no ground and don't move an inch is pissing people off. There are millions of women and parents that were indifferent to guns, but now are looking at gun owners and when they see Ted Nugent running his idiot mouth and others who say we will do nothing and you can't take my gun, then see the small wood boxes being carried in and out of funeral homes, well we ain't going to win that fight.
I am a gun owner and have assault rifles and I have to admit that selling guns in the parking lot of the local wal mart with out so much as taking down the guys car plate is not going to end well some of the time. I would say that many times its a legal transaction, but it only takes one to get through. Why can't gun owners say that even if they don't want to ban assault weapons, at the very minimum we should all agree on is that there should be a federal law that mandates all guns transactions go through a licensed FFL dealer and a back ground check is done. Will this stop all crime? You would be a fool to think it would. But it may stop some. We have to plug that hole. Its just stupid to require BGC and federal forms filled out and ID taken on dealer sales then you can walk to the table next to the dealer at the gun show and buy from a private individual without so much as as a how old are you.
This is what I meant when I said hard ass idiots in the gun culture are going to get all our guns taken away if we don't start to work on common ground. This Republican we give no ground and don't move an inch is pissing people off. There are millions of women and parents that were indifferent to guns, but now are looking at gun owners and when they see Ted Nugent running his idiot mouth and others who say we will do nothing and you can't take my gun, then see the small wood boxes being carried in and out of funeral homes, well we ain't going to win that fight.
So in effect, you ignore the factual data showing that gun control does not work and just want to rely upon your incorrect anecdotes?
We have a saying in medicine-
"One half assed observation on my own is worth ten randomized, blinded, prospective studies in the literature". It appears as though you live by those rules.
Let's post the link again for those who are a little slow.
Since actual, factual data shows that gun control does not reduce crime (particularly murder rates), why in the world does anyone advocate gun control? Is this another one of those irrational, emotional repsonses to promote something ineffectual and potentially detrimental out of "fairness"?
Acting irrationally to an outside stimulus is puerile and accomplishes nothing. If one is going to undertake a major endeavor, make sure that the data shows that action produces the desired goal!
I am sure the student who wrote the paper spent a lot of time on it, but the claims are factually false. Australia and in UK where guns were banned, saw a sharp decline in murder rates. I have provided the raw data on those countries on another thread. Murders are down 44% in Australia since the ban, and that is a significant reduction.
The study used Russia as an example of a country with strict gun laws, but high murder rates. The truth is that in Moscow alone, some 400,000 people legally keep 470,000 weapons. Also, Russia is plagued by corruption and lawlessness, so it makes no sense to compary the US to Russia in a matter like this.
People should not argue whether or not the ban would work on US, they should argue whether or not such bans are constitutional, and whether or not majority of citizens would support them.
The paper is about hand guns. Who's talking at this point about restrictions on hand guns?
What makes other weapons different? That is, what specific points in this paper are inappropriate in evaluating other weapons? What should be evaluated in order to achieve an adequate evaluation of the issue? Could you point to some of the discussion in this paper and explain how your objection is reasonable? I am interested to see on what grounds you think your argument is supported.
I read it, the paper is just about handguns that for some reason includes suicides as a gun crime, and asked a counter question about gun control in total. The data does not address those facts. No, you can't provide a single study of a single instance as conclusive data...then dismiss 60 years of history from over a dozen other countries as "propaganda."
Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I didn't read your pet study. If you think if people just read this one study they will fall over and instantly agree with you then you need to come back to reality son.
I was a military chaplain as well, just to give you a heads up how "liberal" and gun fearing I am.
I am sure the student who wrote the paper spent a lot of time on it, but the claims are factually false. Australia and in UK where guns were banned, saw a sharp decline in murder rates. I have provided the raw data on those countries on another thread. Murders are down 44% in Australia since the ban, and that is a significant reduction.
People should not argue whether or not the ban would work on US, they should argue whether or not such bans are constitutional, and whether or not majority of citizens would support them.
1. Could you provide some citation to your mention please?
2. Did you isolate the cause of the decline? Were crime rates falling already before the law was put in?
Your citation would help us understand the point you are making as well as allow us to evaluate any other considerations of relation to which you may have not considered.
I don't read propaganda, here are some other sources that counter your OP. Second there are profesionals and expterts on every side of every issue. You will just cherry pick your desired outcome.
All depends on how you establish your statistics. Do some research into how these statistics are misleading in such claims as you make. There are so many factors and differences between countries that effect a reasonable evaluation between them to which most statistical analysis fail to evaluate. The problem with statistics is that they are very susceptible to bias.
Which is of course as true with this paper as anywhere else. The fascinating thing about the paper is the vast number of qualifications and caveats it contains.
Quote:
The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students. The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.
I'm shocked.
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.
