Summations Only

Thank-you.

I'll admit to having a skeptical first reaction, but then I remembered the ear protection I had to wear when I had to qualify with a pistol in the military. If I had to work at gun range, I would like it very much if the weapons all had silencers. It would be good for my health.I don't like the idea of silencers being used for hunting. I think same goes for any other situation where a loud report is useful for warning folks that shooters are around.

I always thought it was rather obvious that, basically, more guns = more death issues.I saw a few "facts" in a Cracked.com article.Cracked isn't exactly known for being factual now (or ever?), so it's quite possible these are misleading on purpose.
I was wondering if someone more focused on this issue could explain the seemingly-incorrect ideas the following is making.Here's the article: 19 Commonly held beliefs debunked with statisticsAnd I'm most interested in any rebuttle (or even support, I guess) for #18 and #2.#18 seems to want to say that there is no significant correlation between number-of-guns and homicide-rate.
I don't know if I don't understand the chart, or if their text is misleading or what... but I always thought that number-of-guns generally gave a higher homicide-rate and that it was fairly clear.#2 says the US doesn't spend an alarming amount on it's military when looked at as a percentage of GDP.
I'm not sure if this is really a big point or not. But feel free to discuss, or clarify if you find it interesting.

They're used for sneaking around and shooting people in secret, so nobody hears you and comes after you. Duh.

I don't like the idea of guns being used for hunting. I have no problem with killing animals but make it a fair fight.

Ah yes, I forgot we were living in a movie or computer game

In the real world, why do you think silencers are banned? Do you think our legislators are out to ruin the hearing of hunters?

if American gun laws are anything like Canadian gun laws, then they probably weren't written by people who know all that much about firearms. Suppressors/silencers aren't banned in the whole of the US.

THis is from the linked article below.

quote:

---

In the decades before the Port Arthur killings, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia (defined by academics as the killing of five or more people, not including the shooter).

​

Since the 1996 gun reform, Australia has not had another mass shooting,

​

This is not to say gun violence has been eliminated. In December 2014, an armed gunman entered a Sydney cafe during the morning rush hour and took a group of people hostage. Two people were killed, and four were injured during the attack.

---

Impact of Aussie Gun Laws

We don't get the murderers to write our laws on murder either.

that's a false comparison. My point was that the ones writing the laws might not be all the educated on the subject of the law. Like if I, a non-doctor, was involved in a bill that that banned certain medical practices.

Like I said, our bills that ban certain medical practices are written by people who are mostly all non-doctors. It might be nice if they consulted with doctors but it isn't mandatory. They don't consult with murderers about banning murder procedures.

you said: my reply was trying to answer this question. My position is the legislators may not be aware that there are non-stealthy-hollywood-murderer reasons for owning a suppressor.

It doesn't matter if silencers have good effects. We ban things because of the bad effects.

I don't have an answer for you, but I do have a little information. There's little correlation between number of guns in a country and homicide rates because of the "gun collector" factor. In the US gun collecting is very popular. There are more guns than people in US. The popularity of gun collecting varies across countries without discernible rhyme or reason.A more meaningful correlation for comparing countries would be between the homicide rate and the gun ownership rate, where the number of guns owned isn't considered. The gun ownership rate could be by household or by individual.BBC had a good article today that contains part of the information you want: Here's a graph I posted a couple years ago in Message 4502: Here's a graph I posted a good long time ago showing the levels of gun ownership by country: Here's a scatterplot I made and posted in Message 3018. It shows that by state there is no apparent relationship between gun prevalence and gun homicides: Here's a great paper originally posted in Message 3151 that found that each percentage point increase in gun ownership resulted in a .9% increase in gun homicide: The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981—2010. Oh, darn, it's behind a paywall now.--Percy