you can toss the baseball bat argument out the window all you want, but it still is a FACT that it causes more deaths by THOUSANDS in the USA every year than do guns.

I would also like to point out a few stats because repeatedly tell us that these other developed nations have a fraction of the gun/homicide rate we do. I am not debating that. They all also have a far more lenient drug policy and much better mental health services, both major contributors to homicide of any sort. That said, here are some figures that I doubt you have seen before.


While yes, USA does have a higher homicide rate than a large segment of the "developed world" to say that the USA is more violent is a flat out lie. While it may not be homicide, the violent crime is still there. Great Britain leads the world in violent crime with a whopping 2,034 cases per 100,000 people. They wouldn't be alone in this list either, Austira, another country with strict gun control 1,677 per 100k Additionally, South Africa (1,609) Sweden (1,123) Belgium (1,006) Canada (935) Finland (738) Netherlands (676) and France (504) all have very strict gun laws, almost no gun violence yet all have higher violent crime rate that the USA, which is accountable for only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people despite the very relaxed gun laws. As you can see, guns and violent crime do not go hand in hand. These people are criminals, by nature they dont follow laws. Even if guns are not readily available what next? Knives? Bombs? Baseball Bats (which are already responsible for more deaths than guns in USA)

The problem is not the guns. The problem is the people and the serious lack of mental health services and bad parenting. I would rather have someone that is going to snap snap and kill 15-20 people in a "mass" shooting, than have them make a IED and blow something up killing hundreds if not thousands.

Regardless, it is a lot easier and more viable to control guns, than to provide more costly health services or demand parents to attend weekly lessons on how to be a good parent.

so it is easier to try to remove 220 million guns?

So what you are saying is that even though you concede that guns are the secondary issue, its more practical to just control them rather than dealing with the major issue at hand. Choosing to go that path because its cheaper and easier, not because it is the right thing to do or the better long term solution. Attitudes like yours are precisely the reason we are in the situation we are in.

In the real world, we cannot afford to NOT fix our mental health system. The damages we will continue to see due to this issue will only increase as time goes on, with or without guns.

The two aren't mutually exclusive solutions. One is just unfeasible in the short run so if you want to lower the rates of gun crime starting now, just get rid of guns.

Btw your baseball bats fact is from a conservative chain email that has about as much validity as "did you know Barack Hussein Obama secretly worships Allah and loves terrorism?" http://www.snopes.com/...ics/guns/baseballbats.asp

I'm going to guess that your rates of violent crime are from somewhere similar.

^

PP is awesome. Bonus.

suppose I'd be asking for too much if i wanted LAWS rockets to be legalized just so i could get the bus to stop when it's too early and tries to leave me standing there waiting for the next one?

The only stats on anything involving murder that I found on a site that seemed legit and without a goal to manipulate you one way or the other definitely showed the USA with much higher rates than GB/Canada/Western world. Pointless argument anyways though.

how is it pointless? i could pretty much go around bonking people on the head for everything that i want if there aren't any guns. i need sex! bonk, satisfied. i need money! bonk, satisfied.

don't even have to worry about a metal detector if i walk around with a bat. just need a coat bulky enough to conceal it.

and i don't actually see anybody posting valid stats. just ser some idiot posting something that might invalidate some stats that were posted.

Nobody has denied the USA having a higher murder rate, I even conceded that, because it is true. I dont think that anybody on this forum would argue that if drug laws were loosened or legalized those murder rates would drop, especially in the cities.



And PP.

While I did fall for the baseball bat stats without checking them. Which is my error. The rest of the stats were checked and as far as I am aware, confirmed by multiple sources.

That said, while checking through the FBI site to check numbers "Assault rifles" are being unfairly attacked.

2009 according to the FBI there were 13,636 murders. Guns were used to kill 9,146 people. Hands and feet were used to kill 801 people. "Other weapons" were used to murder 611 people. Rifles (ALL rifles) were used to murder 348 people. The FBI does not distinguish between regular hunting and "assault style" rifles, So if fair to assume that assault rifles are even lower than the 348 people. In 2009, there were nine states that did not have a single murder committed with any rifle. Yet the "assault rifle" continuously gets brought up every time a weapons ban/weapons control legislation is mentioned.

not to mention all overall violent crime and murder has dropped for every year the last 6 years

PER FBI website.

As for my other stats I found them from

http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/...s-most-violent-crime.html

this was sourced as UN/EU commission data. Figured they were legit numbers.


the findings were back up with this, not exactly the same numbers but the same outcomes. http://www.civitas.org.uk/...ime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

also supported by the following
http://www.nationmaster.com/...u_off-crime-drug-offences



while all of those sources compare data from different years and sources, they all yield the same conclusion, that while the USA does have more deaths as a result of gun, they have much lower overall violent crime rate than its peers.

simply taking away guns, as those other countries have done, will not stop the crime or the killings that these mentally unstable people commit.

would have better results getting us to quit smoking pot.

Is a murder counted as a violent crime or separate?

Also I only glanced at that page earlier before deeming it not legit enough(since it was a blog and I figured most of those probably have a stance they want to convince you of). I found it very hard to find actual news stations or wiki type articles on violent crime in particular. Either way there is a problem and there are probably lots of solutions that could help. Mental health would definitely be one of them.

Guns are made to shoot and kill things.

They're made to hunt game and kill people in wars.

Unless you are hunting game on the oregon trail on your computer, why do you need a gun?

People steal because they need money or something to sell so they can survive. (Generally)
What's the per capita income on all the countries with more cases of violent crime than the US?

dittie, that is exactly why we need guns.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

do you understand what that means?

Yes, I understand what it means. I also understand WHEN it means.

This is 2013.

We don't need guns to protect ourselves. We need people to stop arguing and learn to get along. You've got to start trusting people. Yes, there will be a period after you take away guns where people will turn to crime. Eventually, people will evolve away from violence.

Having guns and bombs and all that only gives rise to using them.

Every action has a reaction. Creating guns and bombs only gives one reaction. Killing things. Yes, cars kill, knives kill. People are violent. But, cars aren't made to kill people, they are made to transport people. As more people use cars, accidents happen. Over time accidents are reduced as are deaths. You guys are smart. Don't let your stubbornness get in the way of your argument.

Two people are pointing guns at each other.
1st person: I'm going to shoot!
2nd person: As am I!
1st person: I don't want to shoot you!
2nd person: I don't want to shoot you, either!
1st person: Well then, put down your gun!
2nd person: You first!

I'm putting down my gun.

Men have fought and killed for thousands of years. Long before guns. Why don't you guys ever raise that question?

The problem is the direction our ancestors set us in. That whole 'selfish' gene.

We need to redirect ourselves. Are we not smarter after thousands of years? We just have cooler things I guess.

Sigh.

get out of my country and move to europe.

Tell that to the radical islam with backpacks full of xplosives, dittie.

Sorry. I've served 5 years as an 18E in the Army. I am definitely entitled to my opinion and to my citizenship.

yea you are, you should still move to europe though, i hear they dont like having rights either.

That's doesn't raise a counter argument though. Hate is definitely a great fuel but so is love. We go around killing every radical Islamist 1000 more pop up in their place. You think they don't know they need to have kids and teach them to hate America and all we stand for? As stated previously, I served in the military. I'm aware of these problems. Wouldn't you agree, we need to move in a better direction? It's best we agree on what's right and try and move in a positive direction, rather than fight amongst ourselves.

Right. It would be wrong to go around taking everyones' possessions. But, could we ban the production?

no we should ban nothing because its illegal to do so.

I'd ban the production.

im glad youre not in charge then

I'm looking ahead. Something you aren't doing, imo.

What I see is a future where people have access to a lot more.
Every household will be able to go online and learn how to make a gun or a missile in 5 minutes.
Which means there will be more missiles. More missiles and more people... that will be more deaths. there will be so many missiles we won't be able to take them away because everyone will be outraged and start firing missiles at the government and each other.
rocks.swords.guns.missiles

Or maybe we will get lucky and start getting along with each other. no wars. no fighting. the only disagreements will be on forums such as this.

every household can go online right now and ive not heard of a single person building a missile. you are a nut job.

Hey, from here on out if you disagree with me can you just say you disagree with me?

Don't call me names.

Thanks.

'If you really want to reduce the amount of gun violence - the first place you need to start is with the governments around the world. Democide is the leading cause of death around the world, and has been for quite some time. Take the guns away from the governments, and people soon realize they have to talk with each other, be civil, and work things out. Not lobby their government endlessly for laws, sanctions, and acts of war.'
Friend of mine

you are a nut job

You were anti-black in 1879 anti-women in 1920, and probably anti-gay now.

You are the opposition of change. I get it. Please, stop calling me names online? You're hurting my feelings.

Dittie
five years as a 18E? fluff you, i say your full of fluff. stop making fluff up. you conduct youself like a fluff tard.

need guns for the time when bullies become too numerous and it requires to much effort to beat them to death.

because he doesn't equate the right to have a gun with free society?

you're just like mrford with some vague concept of "freedom" in your head that you can't really define but you know it includes guns because guns are so fun to play around with!!!

then there's people like Pain who are telling people to move to Europe where "people don't like freedom" despite the fact that northern european liberal democracies rank ahead of the US in just about every attempt to measure "freedom." but hey, they can't own guns so I guess that's more accurate right?

and then KoHeartsGoP or whatever who thinks you need guns to stop the Muslamic Ray Gun from gunning you down


mdevol: accepted, but have a look at your civitas link. The US isn't significantly better than average in any category and is a clear leader in murder. The US does have a very low rate of assaults per 100,000 population though, but as for the rest of the crimes it seems to be about average. Note too that a lot of these crimes are definition dependent - Sweden for instance classifies a lot of things as rape that might not be rape elsewhere (see Assange case as an example, he claimed that 3/4 things that the Swedish were charging him for would not be rape in the UK)

ya, I took a quick look and it looks like the US ranks ahead (as in more incidents) of most of the "developed" world in murder, rape, gun violence, and almost every other violent crime category. There are more assaults elsewhere and more rapes in a few places, but the US holds pretty much all the "i want to kill you" categories.

Also, if the American revolution was 200 years earlier (technologically) and the constitution only discussed swords, would everyone be having the same fight about swords? if it happened today, would it be a right to bear smart phones?

http://www.stanford.edu/...i/slides/ViolentCrime.pdf

Page 2 :)

the US is waaaaaaaay outside the distribution for the rest of the world

I was young, I went in at like 19 and was an e-6 at like 22. Not a lot of people like that. heh
(I don't know what I said, but I guess my previous post was deleted?)

http://www.nytimes.com/...w-generation-on-guns.html?



Let's start 'em young! I wish we had something like that here :(

Exactly.. And the underlying principle remains. The government cannot remove the rights of the citizens to use tools that keep government in check.

so the government shouldn't be allowed to ban individuals from owning let's say missiles and chemical weapons?

what does the government need them for? we're all one big happy family and nobody needs any weapons at all...

bonus!

http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/top_10_crime_guns.htm

this list is 10 years old, but I couldn't find a newer list that broke down by gun model.

That said, of those top ten guns used in violent crime, 0 made the list of propsed guns to be banned. Why is that? I thought the gun ban is about stopping crime and murders?


I will say it again, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting, nowhere in it does it even mention hunting. It is our fundamental right to arm ourselves against our government.

Yesterday there were 5 shootings in Chicago, bringing the total of murders to 31 since Jan 1st. Does the media report this? No. Why? because Chicago has already banned every one of the guns that has been used in these killings, yet they are still there. Ironically instead of going hard on the stump to fix this issue their mayor, Rahm Emauel, is speaking out in support of a country wide assault rifle ban. Assault rifles were responsible for less than 275 deaths in the USA last year. That is almost half of the total number of Chicago alone (518), a city in which 0 reported assault rifles were used to kill.

I chose (and revised) my wording carefully. I originally typed "restrict." I am a libertarian not an anarchist. Restrictions based on logic and facts I am open to. This debate on the other hand is talking about complete bans and people trotting out lines about what is "needed" for hunting, as if the second amendment has ANYTHING to do with hunting or recreation.

The second amendment was written in a different world essentially. That is one of the things I find funny and pathetic about the arguments some people try to put forward. You don't argue for the right to own blacks as property, and you don't argue that women should not vote (that reduced male power which is a right of sorts), and yet these were changed well after the first amendments were written. You are so caught up with the fact that it was there at the beginning of your country that you are neglecting to make actual logical arguments for it. I have seen at least one good argument by someone in here that is pro guns but I have seen plenty of terrible ones.

"It was a right at the start and we have to stop the government from enslaving us!"
"But alcohol kills so many people"
"Baseball bats!"
"Cars!"

Not good arguments. Just because something was once one way does not mean that it should not be changed simply for the sake of not changing it. Reevaluating things after the fact is what has our society in the position it is today. Otherwise we would still be living in the stone age as far rights and law goes.

the only thing that has changed since the Constitution was written is technology. people are still the same now as they were then.