(February 12, 2016 at 5:04 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(February 12, 2016 at 1:39 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Well that would be because you do not know about the history of gun crime gun crime in the UK. We have had no mass shootings since semi automatic rifles were banned after the Hungerford massacre. The ban has worked extremely well In my view and has prevented mass murders. Do you think the people who beheaded Lee Rigby would have killed just the one person if they had had access to the array of weaponry that any idiot can purchase in America, no they would have tried to carry out paris style attacks.

Yeah, but mass shooting and 'gun deaths' aren't the issue that I'm addressing. Which is the claim that banning guns is going to reduce the homicide rate. Which it didn't in the UK.

There has been a rise in criminal gang activity in the UK and a sharp rise in the population with very little in the way of gun related gun deaths. It seems likely that without gun regulation gun deaths would have increased.
What you seem to be saying is that America and Americans are by nature more prone to shooting people. Is this really your argument?

(February 13, 2016 at 5:54 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 12, 2016 at 5:04 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Yeah, but mass shooting and 'gun deaths' aren't the issue that I'm addressing. Which is the claim that banning guns is going to reduce the homicide rate. Which it didn't in the UK.

There has been a rise in criminal gang activity in the UK and a sharp rise in the population with very little in the way of gun related gun deaths. It seems likely that without gun regulation gun deaths would have increased.
What you seem to be saying is that America and Americans are by nature more prone to shooting people. Is this really your argument?

What's the point in reducing gun-related deaths when it has absolutely no impact on your murder rate?

Banning guns has obviously not stopped anyone from killing anybody.

What would the murder rate be if they still had guns easily available?

(February 13, 2016 at 10:03 am)Gawdzilla Wrote: What would the murder rate be if they still had guns easily available?

Oh, be serious! Do you really think that if gun ownership in the UK increased proportionally to that of the US that the murder rate would climb with it? How much do you think it would climb per additional gun owned in the UK? If it worked this way, then holy shit, you would have more murders than the whole world combined! Goddamn, you Brits are a murderous lot!

The above question has already been answered in the US, where the number of guns owned has more than doubled in the past two decades, while the murder rate has decreased. Therefore, gun ownership does not encourage murder.

How about that old NRA saw, that guns don't kill?   Turns out they really don't, barring the infinitesimal accident rate, which is 100% preventable and measures for that are present and enforced. A gun is just a tool, and

Tool<>Motivation.

(February 10, 2016 at 2:09 pm)pool the great Wrote: Give cops only rubber bullets and handguns.

Misread this as "give a robot rubber gloves".

Does cops clocking people for no reason count as murder?
What about idiots that accidently clock family members?
Does that count as murder?
I think the point of putting regulations on guns is to minimize gun related deaths - not all homicides.
So saying since gun regulations don't bring down overall murder rates and hence should be nullified is kind of...meaningless dontya think? Since the whole point of gun regulations is to control gun related deaths..
There could be whole lots of reasons why the overall murder rates didnt go down even after banning guns..like an increase in mugging(gone bad) or gang activities(or increase in other criminal activities that led to murder)...but the point of gun regulations isnt about decreasing the overall murder rates is it?Its about decreasing gun related deaths and whether a decrease in gun related deaths have an impact on the overall murder rate is irrelevant dontya think?

(February 13, 2016 at 10:56 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 13, 2016 at 10:03 am)Gawdzilla Wrote: What would the murder rate be if they still had guns easily available?

Oh, be serious! Do you really think that if gun ownership in the UK increased proportionally to that of the US that the murder rate would climb with it? How much do you think it would climb per additional gun owned in the UK? If it worked this way, then holy shit, you would have more murders than the whole world combined! Goddamn, you Brits are a murderous lot!

The above question has already been answered in the US, where the number of guns owned has more than doubled in the past two decades, while the murder rate has decreased. Therefore, gun ownership does not encourage murder.

How about that old NRA saw, that guns don't kill?   Turns out they really don't, barring the infinitesimal accident rate, which is 100% preventable and measures for that are present and enforced. A gun is just a tool, and

Tool<>Motivation.

You got no numbers. Long-winded way of saying that.

Oh, and yes, I do think the murder rate would increase if guns were more readily available, they're the murder tool of cowards way too often.

(February 13, 2016 at 12:45 pm)pool the great Wrote: Does cops clocking people for no reason count as murder?
What about idiots that accidently clock family members?
Does that count as murder?
I think the point of putting regulations on guns is to minimize gun related deaths - not all homicides.
So saying since gun regulations don't bring down overall murder rates and hence should be nullified is kind of...meaningless dontya think? Since the whole point of gun regulations is to control gun related deaths..
There could be whole lots of reasons why the overall murder rates didnt go down even after banning guns..like an increase in mugging(gone bad) or gang activities(or increase in other criminal activities that led to murder)...but the point of gun regulations isnt about decreasing the overall murder rates is it?Its about decreasing gun related deaths and whether a decrease in gun related deaths have an impact on the overall murder rate is irrelevant dontya think?

As already pointed out by those more apprised of the facts than I, gun-related deaths are quite infinitesimal (that means approaching zero percent by an extremely narrow margin, just in case you don't understand big words) compared to gun-related deaths. Banning cars, hot objects, or anything which may fall on an unwary kid's head would work just as well in preventing accidents, although it would not even approach the effectiveness of gun locks and proper storage. Therefore, I'll get behind proper storage and gun locks, and we can leave it at that.

As demonstrated by British murder stats, gun-related homicides (which represent the overwhelming majority of gun-related deaths) are not caused by guns, but the motivation to kill - remove the gun, and the killing will happen anyway, one way or another.

Please move on, there's nothing to see here!

(February 13, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: Oh, and yes, I do think the murder rate would increase if guns were more readily available, they're the murder tool of cowards way too often.

I agree, but lets not throw the word "coward" around, that is a point of view issue. They think a weapon makes them brave. And the issue of making more guns easier to get is not an issue of getting them legally or illegally, but the volume made and ease of access no matter how you obtain them.

More guns is insane considering the amount of gun deaths and gun injuries we already have.