Summations Only

So the "ultimate goal" of those who advocate gun controls is.....what? I'm still desperately unclear as to what the "ulterior motive" being talked about here actually is?What is this "ulterior motive"?

Irrational fear.?Like vertigo or a fear of spiders or something like that?It still seems considerably more likely that those who advocate gun controls do so because they genuinely believe guns to be dangerous and requiring of control on that basis. Now it’s possible that those who consider guns dangerous enough to warrant controls are wrong about that. You are free to attempt make an evidence based case for the ‘guns are perfectly safe without extra controls’ position if you can?But I put it to you that these silly attempts of yours to trivialise positions as borne from mere dislike or irrational fear are themselves borne from your own inability to make any sort of evidence based or reasoned case in support of your own position.It’s easier for you to start making hyperbolic accusations about people having ulterior motives or talking about saving children as a guise than to actually address the very rational concerns people have about gun use. In my experience pro-gunsters irrationally see guns as iconic emblems of personal liberty despite the fact that this thinking has very little relevance in modern Western societies.

But why don't they (these moms and mayors) want people to have guns? What is their reasoning? You have talked about an "ultimate goal" but why would anyone want gun control as an "ultimate goal" in and of itself?So far you've claimed "dislike" of guns but as I've pointed out that could equally apply to anchovies. Baseless personal "dislike" seems an unlikely root cause for seeking to impose legal restrictions on things.You have also claimed "irrational fear". But again - Some sort of phobic reaction to guns seems far less likely than the stated criteria of considering guns dangerous.Why don't you confront the actual concerns actual people actually have and the basis for these concerns rather than pretending that there is some sort of "despicable" plot at hand?

Where are guns most prevalent in the developed world - The US.Where is the teenage pregnancy rate highest in the developed world? from Wiki on teenage pregnancy:

quote:

---

The teenage birth rate in the United States is the highest in the developed world, and the teenage abortion rate is also high.

---

So much for dads armed with guns fending off interest in their daughters.....Maybe you should consider joining the rest of us in the 21st century. As I sit here in London I can't see any indications of being surrounded by lawlessness. But you apparently know better?

You are the one linking gun ownership with teenage girls getting pregnant. I'm simply pointing out that your assertion regarding guns as deterring that outcome seems woefully misplaced. It's not a question of perfect. It's simply a case of demonstrating that very strong restrictions on gun ownership hasn't resulted in the sky falling in or mass lawlessness in the way gun advocates in the US say will happen. For example...... But it was you who raised the comparison!! It was you that started talking about comparing the US and the UK in terms of people wanting to live "in a society where there is law and order". I simply pointed out that the UK isn't particularly lawless.

I thought we had already established that the problem with Chicago was with the specifics of the laws they tried to implement.Chicago seems to have based it's specific laws on this unenforceable inside/outside distinction rather than emulate what has actually worked elsewhere. Message 2259 and up-thread from that.To say that it is not possible to successfully prohibit guns or introduce laws to that effect because one place made a hash of it by doing it in a silly way is a very weak argument on your part.

Which laws? The ones in Chicago specifically? The ones you argued were un-enforcable? The ones which made little difference to the prevalence of guns in Chicago?There are lots of examples of cities and nations where such laws have worked and the general trend seems pretty well established. On that Percy is correct. You personally are fixated with Chicago because superficially strict laws implemented woefully badly didn't have the desired effect. It was you in this very thread that highlighted the un-enforceable nature of those laws specifically implemented in Chicago.Why you think that example trumps all the other examples where laws have been implemented effectively is a mystery. The repeal of laws which were implemented badly and didn't work is unlikely to make any significant difference to the prevalence of guns. Isn't that obvious....?

OK. Illinois came 39th out of 51 states with a rate of 8.2 per 100,000 as compared to the US figure of 10.1What point are you making specifically about Illinois? This is what Percy actually said: "seems to indicate that states with stronger gun control laws tend to have lower firearm death rates".Where is the mention of Illinois in that which you felt the need to "disabuse"? I think you are being disingenuous by relentlessly harping on about Chicago when you yourself highlighted that the problem with those specific laws was that they were un-enforceable.If you want to talk about the effect of gun laws on gun deaths perhaps looking at places where the laws have been implemented effectively is the way forwards.......

So you are not even disagreeing with Percy's statement about gun laws and gun deaths in the state of Illinois. You are instead upset because one part of the state (namely Chicago) doesn't fit the overall correlation that the state as a whole was used to exemplify.Furthermore it was you earlier in this thread who highlighted why the specific laws in question were unenforceable in Chicago (the whole inside/outside distinction).So what on earth is your point here? That some specific badly designed laws didn't work in a specific place so therefore no gun control laws will work anywhere......?What point exactly are you making here with your continual fixation with Chicago?

How are you using a gun to stop a behaviour except by threatening to shoot?

If a proliferation of guns made people better protected from crime the US would be the safest and most law abiding place in the developed world.It isn't.For murder rates the US comes joint second worst (Mexico tops the list) of OECD countries. Link

Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level.

quote:

---

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

​

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

​

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

​

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

​

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

​

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

​

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

​

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

​

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

​

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

---

LinkDo you dispute these findings?

If someone does enter your home you'd probably be better off in a place where guns are rare and burglars don't commonly carry them....Why gun advocates think a prevalence of guns in such situations makes such situation anything but likely to be more deadly is mystifying.

Does this mean you have stopped denying that there is correlation?

The pro- gun lobby go through predictable cycles. First they deny correlation. Then they say "correlation is not causation"(or words to that effect). Then they start citing causal relationships which dont stand up to evidential scrutiny (e.g. homicidal people seek out guns thus explaining the correlation between guns and homicides)Whre are you at in that cycle? Denying evidence or proclaiming evidence of correlation as on your side...?