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.
Australia has a higher homicide rate than Germany or Switzerland, and both have higher legal gun ownership rates than Oz. Lets start there...
Have those studies corrected for all other factors?
Then why not tackle those issues instead of focusing on the item used, focus on the social and economic issues.
Oh you mean like Radiotherapy?
Yes Germany and Switzerland have a higher gun homicide rate than Australia, but they have higher firearm related deaths, particularly Switzerland.
Increasing gun ownership rates in an already violent county are not an answer whether it is the US or Somalia, gun statistics are not the sole determinant, the demographics of the country, history of violence come into play. Our reaction to increased violence is to increase gun ownership.
Yes Germany and Switzerland have a higher gun homicide rate than Australia, but they have higher firearm related deaths, particularly Switzerland.
Increasing gun ownership rates in an already violent county are not an answer whether it is the US or Somalia, gun statistics are not the sole determinant, the demographics of the country, history of violence come into play. Our reaction to increased violence is to increase gun ownership.
Exactly Goodnight, in an already violent county, you want to decrease any chance of citizens to be able to defend themselves. Makes perfect sense. Live if a country were there's a good chance you may be raped or murdered, don't carry a weapon "A" to defend yourself because if you do, criminals might kill you with weapon "A" instead of with using weapon "B"...
In response to your other post, not all gun owners are trained properly. Hence the reason why my safety is concerned when too many citizens are armed.
This is called collateral damage.
This would be relevant if the debate was whether or not to mandate training.
It's whether or not to BAN guns.
In response to your other post, not all gun owners are trained properly. Hence the reason why my safety is concerned when too many citizens are armed.
This is called collateral damage.
Most gun owners who carry concealed in public legally have some training. Most states mandate it in order to obtain a CHL. Tell me though, how much training do you think these lunatics doing the mass shootings have? How about the street thugs? The answer is obviously NONE. If we lived in the same town there is a good chance I have passed you on a routine basis and had my weapon with me. Guess what. You survived. I think you would be amazed at how many people in this country legally carry daily. Yet you never even know they are.
Yes Germany and Switzerland have a higher gun homicide rate than Australia
Nice switch, to the same old trope...
I'm not discussing gun homicides, because it's irrelevant, is it less dead when you're mowed down by a car, or beaten to death with a bat, or stabbed with a knife, or blown up with a bomb, or poisoned, or set on fire? More people drown on the beach than drown on a hike in the forest, however how many people die at the beach, vs. die in the forest? If you want to select a lower risk activity you're more concerned with total deaths than the means of death. For instance suppose we eliminate gun ownership and firearms deaths per 100,000 falls from 4.0 currently to 3.0 its a fall, but if the homicide rate in general increases to 10/100,000 would you consider that a success? If not why not?
The argument that Australia is safer from homicides than the US because of restricted gun ownership is not borne out by Germany and Switzerland, where homicide rates are lower than Australia, and lawful gun ownership is higher. Therefore there are other factors that cause increased homicide rates other than lawful gun ownership, Jamaica's homicide rate is 4 times the US rate, and it has significantly lower lawful gun ownership.
If you care about accidents, then why pick on guns? There are significantly more (~34,000) people die in car accidents annually. If we ignore intentional actions using firearms and look at accidental deaths there were 1203 in 2010 (source CDC) (and yes we can, if you want to ignore gross homicides in favor of gun homicides, I can ignore intentional gun use).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Increasing gun ownership rates in an already violent county are not an answer whether it is the US or Somalia, gun statistics are not the sole determinant, the demographics of the country, history of violence come into play. Our reaction to increased violence is to increase gun ownership.
Which might have some merit, if it referred to anything I posted. I wonder why you consider the US more violent than it was 10 or 20 years ago, because that's patently false. Therefore increased gun ownership in the US (if it has increased) has happened during a period of falling violence, is this related? Can you discount it as unrelated? I'm not making any statements to the effect that it is related, but it's interesting don't you think?
Yes Germany and Switzerland have a higher gun homicide rate than Australia, but they have higher firearm related deaths, particularly Switzerland.
Increasing gun ownership rates in an already violent county are not an answer whether it is the US or Somalia, gun statistics are not the sole determinant, the demographics of the country, history of violence come into play. Our reaction to increased violence is to increase gun ownership.
The problem you have, is that most of the killings are done by gang members (not to say all killings, there are stupid people out there)...that's what you don't see either, also, if you take away suicides from this gun equation....well you have half of the killings that are reported.....
That is the theory by the misinformed (deliberately or otherwise).
I can go by Country (Start with Australia) on why that isn't true, or any number of studies that would say that your chance of family being hurt/killed only goes UP with a gun in the home. . not down.
Now I don't think getting rid of guns will get rid of all gun violence (like europe) because of social economic issues here in the US.
Yet anyone who says guns are for protection.. .about as smart as dosing yourself in radiation to protect from cancer.
you are the type of person that picks and choose the data when it comes to firearms.
instead of only using the firearms to decide the murder and crime rate for firearms, include all crime and suicides as well. that way even japan can be shown that their rate of death is even higher than the USA.
firearms are for protection and they are also for offensive uses, and they are even for forcing others to do your will, such as government does.
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.
