You are right, study after study shows Firearms deaths in the USA are higher than many countries that ban or strongly restrict guns. However, study after study (many link in this thread so I will not relink them) also show that those same countries have much higher violent crime rates than the USA. There has been a lot of talk in this thread about causality of guns vs violent crime. I can't explain it, but those 2 facts are pretty big and are pretty consistent in many studies about many countries. I can't speak for everyone, but if less violent crime means more guns deaths I can live with that...and who couldn't. Why would a person want to live in violence?
There is no way to directly measure violent crime rates from country to country given the differeng interpretations of what represents violent crime so that point is moot. It is however possible to measure relative gun deaths quite accurately which surely incorporate the most violent crime of all, murder. I always find it odd that the US has spent many hundreds of billions post 9/11 in anti terrorist measures designed to keep the country safe. Since that time around 20 or so people have been victims of terrorist related activity in continental USA whilst 400,000 have needlessly died by firearm be that accidentaly or otherwise. This is a figure greater than the fatalities suffered in all the wars the US has been a participant in over the last century. According to the FBI statistically you are 6 times more likely to be killed or injured in the home by a gun kept for defence than by the hand of any intruder So how does this make you safer ?
That's the issue - where the government is like "well, we've got the men with guns and the ability yo imprison you, so do this", there's not much of a calculation going on there to make the regulation representative to the preferences of the society. In this instance - is there some epidemic of gun crime in courts, legislatures, etc? How do you weigh that against the desire of individuals to carry? [HR][/HR] Thinking like that results in regulations such as the prohibition on .338 Lapua rifles in Australia. Has any Australian ever been killed with one? No - but that doesn't stop them, they have the men with guns and prisons, why bother with estimating the cost to the firearms community?
Its not moot, but it may be muted. An murder is murder, an attack on a person is an attack on a person no matter what country you live in. Even if the stats are off they won't drop enough to swing the other with any real measure. (Yes this is my opinion just like the the moot is yours because neither has a study to back it up.) Needlessly, is in the eyes of the beholder. If person breaks into a house and is attempting to assault, rape, or otherwise harm that person and said shot that criminal, I would bet said person and thier family would disagree with the "needlessly" word. Question - How many people BEFORE 9/11 were victims of terrorist attack on US soil.......not many outside of the Oklahoma City bombing I would wager. So we have all of the unconstitutional spy and phone tapping for what....All in the name of protecting the people. How many have been stopped because of the spying and phone tapping......undeterminable, just like the number of crimes prevented at the sight of a gun because many go unreported.
Your overall murder rates are four times that of Europe and more than three quarters of those are made using firearms so yes your 30,000 deaths a year are needless and avoidable. That the electorate of no other nation would choose to emulate your appalling example rather speaks for itself. Any party that would attempt to do so would be committing political suicide. Gun rights in the US are more about indulging weekend Rambos than anything else after all nobody legitimately needs (for example) an AK47 in their life. Lets not pretend that gun rights and the ownership of often arsenals of such types of weaponry have anything to do with personal security
You're not seriously implying that if firearms were not available that 30,000 murders would not have happened, are you? I hope you can see the flaw in that logic. If a gang member decides someone needs to be murdered, he will be murdered, guns or no. Who is primarily responsible for my personal security? Can someone in Scotland really assess my needs from a personal security standpoint? While I may not "need" an AK47 in YOUR neighborhood, you have no basis to presume I don't need one in mine.
Yes because guns make murder so much easier There is no flaw in that logic as multiple international comparisons earlier in this thread clearly illustrate We have criminal gangs in Europe too but we still do not have your murder rates. So where is it you live then that would require military firepower ? Damascus ? Irbil ? Lugansk ?
Wasn't it an armed person that stopped the Muslim beheading liberal in OK? Looks to me a gun saved lives.
and you do not have the gang problem we have here in the US. Come on over and visit Harlem, Chicago, Gary, east LA, Atlanta, or Miami, then come back with a full flavor, that is, if you can get out of one of these areas.
Clearly, there is. You have nothing like we have here. We have as many lawless, marauding gang members here as the entire population of Glasgow and Edinburgh combined. An AK47 is less 'powerful' than my hunting rifle is. It's much more scary looking though. That you ask where I live absolutely illustrates that you can not possibly make any decision about what *I* need from your comfy chair in Scotland. Where I live is irrelevant to the point. *I* am responsible for my security; there is no one else. And *I* decide what is necessary to effect that security, within the laws of my community. You said "no one needs an AK47 for personal security". I'm merely pointing out that you cannot make that judgement just based upon YOUR personal situation.
Chicken and egg syndrome here. Would you even have your violent gang problem were it not for your societies easy access and tolerance to firearms ?
No. The average US city of similar size to Belfast has today a greater gun killing rate than it did at the height of the troubles back in 1972. We considered that a warzone worthy of army intervention at that time.
Our government won't secure our borders, especially with Mexico, so we will always have an endless stream of guns and drugs.
And I fully understand the Mexican governments concerns in this area. Who needs that amount of guns flooding into their country arming their drug cartels after all
yep...........They stated out with clubs and knives the original gang of Net York number in the 4oo or better. Corruption drives the gangs and we have plenty of that over here......
I'd wager its guns and not knives that are the major part of your problem and your statistics bear this out
no, it is income disparity and an over-indulgent sense of entitlements. Plus the money that is made off of the illegal drug trade.
Don't forget the wave of illegal aliens. They are a scourge on this nation. They bring disease and are a drain on our hospitals, schools, and law enforcement. They don't do any job that I haven't already done and most Americans would do if the safety hammock were removed. They account for a disproportionate amount of our nation's crime.
oh hell no, socialism could be part of the problem, now could it.......... oh, and dude, with a total population of 5.2 million, (as compared to New York whose population is 19.65 million (2013)) the crime rate of Scotland as compared to New York is going to be a lot less. your gangs statistics show your gang members number in the thousands, ours is registering in the tens of millions. Fewer people equal less crime "The history of Glasgow gangs can be traced back to the 18th century, although the first media recollection of Glasgow gangs was not until the 1870s with the acknowledgement of the Penny Mobs." So, you've had more than your fair share of crime. That's the pot calling the kettle black. So, why do you think boys and young men join gangs? The drug cartels have had access to our borders for over 30 years. You do not have these people right across your borders. They bring great violence and death. They are armed better than the police, and they brought them in themselves. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1347306/posts You have nothing that compares to this. Your boys walk around playing mumbly-peg and drinking brews. That's not a gang, that's the boy scouts. These guys mean business, and they are all coming from Mexico. You do NOT have a "Mexico" for a neighbor and you do not have MS13 running through your streets. So, if you want to talk about gangs, you would do well to really look into it. We have more gang members than the total population of your country. You do not have the illegal immigration problem we have. Socialist programs and a more Liberal application sets a lot of these people free to the streets. They have been trained to react. If they don't get what they want they merely take it through any means they want. It is a self-imposed sense of entitlement. It's theirs and they will take it.
