The catch-all gun thread

[freedomfromforum]

Sir, I am saying that I would happily agree with the aforementioned requirements should they be introduced.

My bad, I thought you were saying that these were things already implemented in the US.

My bad also, for not being clearer in my first post. I am all for reasonable controls on gun ownership. Guns are obviously here to stay.

[Kayenneh]

What I am not capable of doing is defending myself with my bare hands against a large assailant or multiple assailants. Are you?

Fortunately I have never needed to find out.

First of all, where's your evidence which shows that easier access to guns leads to more people getting shot?

"A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people — more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied."
Another article covering the same study. More guns meant more deaths, they found. "The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death"
Of course, there are other things in play, but yet the US has really bloody statistics when it comes to gun ownership and the correlation with gun related deaths.
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.
The study, covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states, found a “robust correlation” between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent, the authors found.

Do you really think real life is like those Hollywood movies where people shoot guns everywhere without a care in the world?

No, I don't.

Also, in response to your laughable claim that if there are no guns there's no threat, I want you to take a look at this graph:

---

---

Interesting correlation, but it proves nothing. For all one knows from looking at the graph, it can very well mean that 'violent crimes' are fistfights.

They don't want to rob a house if they know that the residents are armed.

I'll ask you again, how many times have you found yourself at gunpoint?

On the other hand, gun-free zones like Chicago are absolutely infested with crime.

And this has nothing to do with Illinois' problem with unemployment, which is the fourth highest in the whole of US?

[EgoRaptor]

You can't just go on ignoring that graph. That is called statistical evidence, of which the anti-gun lobby has none.

[Rahul]

Please explain your proposed plan to remove all guns from the United States of America and we can discuss the probability of success.

I did not suggest that, all I'm saying that permission to carry a gun should be much more selective.

That would make it more difficult to get a concealed carry permit. Nothing more.

So feel free to support that. It won't matter but it might make people feel better like they are actually doing something useful with their time.

A non sequitur.
Firstly, I'm all for legalizing all drugs, but again with limits, and secondly I have no opinion on immigrant quotas for the US.

Your personal opinion on drugs and illegal immigrants aren't the point. I hope you realize that.

The point is that we can't keep things out of this country.

We can't keep drugs out. We can't keep people out. We can't keep guns out.

We have tons of proof on that. Making guns more restrictive will only make it more difficult for the average law abiding person to get a gun. And not even that much for them. For criminals it wouldn't even be a factor.

[TheBeardedDude]

You can't just go on ignoring that graph. That is called statistical evidence, of which the anti-gun lobby has none.

You sure about that?

[Nineteen]

Hey , here is another gun , together special bullets . This bullets only be used by special security forces . I will delete pcture after a while .

deleted....

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

You can't just go on ignoring that graph. That is called statistical evidence, of which the anti-gun lobby has none.

Trying to pin down a single a cause something like falling crime rates is an exercise in futility at best, and stupidity at worst.

For instance, I notice that your graph didn't chart the number of police officers. Nor does it take methods of policing into account. What about the anti-gang initiatives? How about the impact of legalised abortion? How about car immobilisers, improved home security and increasing appeal of electronic crime and ID theft?

So to sum up: we can ignore your graph. It's the intellectually honest thing to do.