gun control

Funky, this is from one of your articles:"Guns were used in 9,974 reported crimes in the year to April 2002, up from 7,362 the year before, the Home Office said. The number of people shot dead jumped 32 percent to total 23."The total number of gun deaths "jumped" to 23.Can you imagine any state in the US having a comparable population to the UK having a gun death toll of only 23? We would think that was miniscule, yet the Brits are freaking out. Seems they take the death of their citizens much more seriously than we do.As for your other link, I notice that it makes a bunch of claims but provides no references or sources for the information. So, I have no way of checking if their claims are accurate or not. I tend to pay little attention to articles like this because they could be pulling anything out of their ass.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-23-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-23-2003]

I have found that, not always, but quite often, gun fanatics are moral cowards.The kind of people that have a "My Only President is Charleton Heston" bumper stickers, but wouldn't dream of actually fighting in combat.The type thast feel that in order to be 'a man' you have to kill an animal with a gun, but wimper with fright when confronted with bodily harm.I've often considered gun lovers to be emasculated wannabes.Now, I am not against gun ownership at all - I own some, and love shooting. Nor am I against hunting per se, providing it is not just to prove your 'manliness.' I, however, see no need to validate my masculinity by killing little animals or having an NRA sticker in my window.What I am against is the silly propagandistic tripe spewn by the gun lobby and its followers, and the attitudes of those that I allude to above.Can't do it with your hands? Get a gun! Instant machismo for the cowardly!

schrafinator says: "Can you imagine any state in the US having a comparable population to the UK having a gun death toll of only 23"I suspect that the Home Office is referring to data for England and Wales. Their combined population is just under 53,000,000. You would need to add a couple of the most populous States in the US together (say California and Texas) to obtain a comparable population size. Then compare their fiearm deaths with the British figure of 23.Another interesting statistic. The homicide rates (excluding firearm homicides) for the US and Australia are roughly equal. However the US homicide rate using a firearm is 10 times the Australian rate.

Justa note:This topic has it's roots in the now closed "Take the state out of the schools!!!!! topic, which can be found at:
http://EvC Forum: Take the state out of the schools!!!!! -->EvC Forum: Take the state out of the schools!!!!!Adminnemooseus

I honestly don't think that guns are the cause of the violence, obviously a tool of the violent, but not the cause. We do not solve the problem of violent behaviour by removing guns.I have a feeling that drugs/alchohol play the largest part in violent crime today. So far I have not found the stats to support it, (i think stats are a flawed form of evidence anyway).In order to solve the problem of violent crime, we have to look at the causes. People were murdering each other long before the gun became the weapon of choice.If we can study the motives in violent crime, and find what drives people to committ these offences, we can make the social/economic changes necessary to drastically drop the violent crime rate.Gun control will only hinder honest people from owning weapons, I do not see how it will stop criminals from getting their hands on guns.Maybe we should work on minimizing poverty as well as drug and alchohol addiction.Then there is always mans great flaw GREED and jelousy.I will never register any weapons, I will not comply to any laws to do with the control of firearms.Gun control does not solve anything, the problems run much deeper than the fact that people own guns.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

quote:

---

the problems run much deeper than the fact that people own guns.

---

Agreed. But it sure is easier to pop someone from ten feet away than to risk getting blood on your jacket using a knife, or possibly even getting hurt yourself. That's why you don't see Columbines with machetes or warclubs: too much personal involvement. A gun eliminates that.
Remember: Guns don't kill people. Bullets do that.

But even without guns the desire to commit such crimes still exists. As long as there is a drive to violence there will be violence, guns or no guns. Gun control skirts around the problem and solves nothing.If we want to solve this problem then we have to find a real solution. Legislation against guns will not remove the underlying problems that drive people to violent crime.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

Hi Funk - People always have commited crimes and always will. We're not perfectible, we all sin and fall short. So set high standards, by all means, and work towards them, but don't hold your breath...Since we are fallible, keeping temptation out of people's way has to be an important way of helping them do the right thing, surely.[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 02-25-2003]

quote:

---

As long as there is a drive to violence there will be violence, guns or no guns.

---

Exactly. But violence is much less likely to be lethal without something that kills at a distance, like a bullet. A gun keeps the killer from having to get personally involved, and that, I think, is why the US has such a large murder rate. Regulating guns now, in 2003, may well do no good, because way too many are out there. Without a time machine, and with alcohol and testosterone freely available too, we're probably pretty much stuck with our current situation.

Perhaps I need to expand a little on my message #3 in which I cited the comparative homicide statistics for US and Australia so as to point out the bloody obvious.Americans and Australians have close cultural affinities. They have comparable social and economic systems. They show similar rates of homicide using weapons such as knives, blunt instruments, by hand etc. However the glaring anomoly is that the rate of homicide by firearms in the US is 10 times that in Australia. Not so co-incidentally, gun controls are much tighter in Australia than the US. Ownership of military type weapons is banned. Owners and users of handguns and firearms are required to go through a licensing process. There is a cooling off period for any purchase of a firearm. Firearm owners are required to store their firearms in approved containers.There are no firearms manufacturers in Australia and they must therefore be imported.Firearms are the preferred weapon by military forces for arming their ground troops? Could this be because they offer the greatest effectiveness with the least risk to the user? Surely this make them also the most effective means of committing homicide.Simple hypothesis: the greater availability of firearms in a community increases the rate of firearms homicides.I don't know if it is too late for America but it should at least recognise methods whcih operate elsewhere which have prevented those countries from following the American trend.

quote:

---

Simple hypothesis: the greater availability of firearms in a community increases the rate of firearms homicides.

---

You also stated that the total homicide rates for the US and for Australia are roughly equal, so what difference does it make that in the US the weapon of choice is a firearm. To state the bloody obvious, who cares? The overall homicide rate is the same. Simple hypothesis: when guns are not available, people will use other means to kill people.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John - I think you misread wj's intended statement.
WordPress › Error
lists the stats: the US has about 4.5 times the homicide rate of Australia, and 4 times that of Canada. And 70% of the homicides in the US are with guns.

Er, no, he said my bold.So the total murder rate is far higher in the US, entirely due to guns. I believe that a very similar comparison can be made between the US and Britain

i have a different take on the issue.i grew up in calif with rather strict gun control laws.
i move to arizona about 20 years ago, the first time i was in line at a safeway the guy in front of me was wearing a sidearm.so i talked to him about it. obviously everything i had learned in calif was going to be different in arizona.by state constitution there are virtually no local laws on guns.
the state is an open carry state, which means that most people can carry a weapon as long as it is visible on their person.the downtown library is talking about putting in gun lockers and requiring you to check in your weapon at the front counter.carry concealed weapon permit are relatively easy to get, 75$ and a nice 16 hr class.i have a CCW, i usually carry a 38auto if i am out after dark, always carry it if i am walking somewheres.i now feel safer knowing that a significant percentage of the people i see are carrying weapons and know how to use them. murder statistics say we have lots more murders than Australia or England. but here they are almost all drug orientated.a long ways from calif...richard williams

John, please advise how I can make things more bloody obvious if you do not read what I write.Now do you have a comment after your misreading has been straightened out for you?