Strict gun control in france.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Dark
Well, your stats don't actually say what you think they do - but they do show that tougher gun laws work to reduce the number of times a murderer can or does choose a gun, when they decide to kill. What the numbers you posted show, is that in france, 21% of homocides are due to firearms (.21 of 1). In the US, for comparison, 67%.  This is to be expected, though, isn't it?  When a gun is available, a gun is the weapon of choice.  I'm left wondering why and how nearly a quarter of their homocides still involve firearms though, if they can't have a gun at all.  I'd call that gun law failure, personally. Apparently, they need to get even tougher than "no guns". As yet another point of comparison, 10/20/Life laws seem to have a roughly similar ability in dissuading the use of guns, even where they are legal. There are other laws, or collections of laws that, again in places where guns are legal, provide a comparable scenario. Most of the states that approach or meet that .21 against .67 marker are states with the strictest gun laws and fewest guns, though there are outliers, such as Wyoming - with a phenomenal amount of guns, extremely lax guns laws....and quixotically low ratios of firearm related homocides. While that ratio is a good one, and a great goal to aspire to for states that have higher rates - it's clear that the abolition of guns isn't required in order to achieve it, and it's also clear that the abolition of guns does not prevent murder, or significantly reduce murder rates.

Long story short, the law can only do so much. I doubt that any law, for example, would have prevented the attacks in paris.

@Dys
Not a damned thing, why?

[dyresand]

How come france's strict gun control didn't prevent the tragedy there?

How come America's lack of gun control didn't prevent 9-11?

We had a president who a was a special kind of special he had the warnings something would happen
did he listen no what was he doing reading a fucking book to kids his expression when said thing happened
uh.. oh.. seriously he was fucking idiot...

[dyresand]

How come france's strict gun control didn't prevent the tragedy there?

To answer your question politely. Even with strict gun control the problem is when it comes to the
fact you can smuggle weapons of any sort that becomes a issue and should be raising red flags.
Not to mention explosives too as well i mean they smuggled that stuff into Paris gun control or not
didn't stop them. Even granted if civilians were granted the use of weapons the same outcome would 
have happened.

[The Grand Nudger]

No law can stop explosives, btw.  No border security, no check points, no customs, no commerce restrictions, nada.  Because you only need a 5 gallon bucket and enough water to keep you pissing...or a shallow trench in wet soil, in order to produce them.  Just a little sideline info.

[Whateverist]

I still think we have a shortage of plow shares in this country which seizing everyone's guns could greatly remedy.

[CapnAwesome]

Then what use are gun laws?

I'm guessing it has to do with lower per-capita murder rates, as spelt out above. You might want to read that post.

While you're at it, you might want to read, and perhaps answer if you're not too tired, my first post in this thread.

Finally, let me just say that your putative argument falls afoul of the guideline of let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. Simply because a law doesn't eliminate all acts it outlaws doesn't mean that law should be stricken.

I'd suggest that you start thinking without allowing your agenda (obvious as it is) to be your mental filter (again, obvious).

It's amazing how someone can say something like this after a terrible mass shooting in a country with strict gun control. Every time there is a mass shooting in the US people say how we need to ban guns to prevent tragedies like this is the future. Every time. The overall murder rate is never brought up. And do you know why that is? Well maybe because it has little affect on the overall murder rate. It certainly didn't have any affect in England when gun laws were enacted in 1964 and the crime rate when up  or stayed relatively similar throughout the next decade.

People always make the case 'well look at the low crime rate in Europe' by which of course they mean only western Europe, all of which certainly has low violence but all of which doesn't even have strict gun control. Meanwhile the crime rate in Eastern Europe is sky high with similar gun control laws. On top of that western Europe has always had a lower crime rate than the US, even when their gun laws were similar. These are the facts that most people on both sides of this debate are terribly ignorant of and incidentally the more important and interesting conversation.

[dyresand]

I'm guessing it has to do with lower per-capita murder rates, as spelt out above. You might want to read that post.

While you're at it, you might want to read, and perhaps answer if you're not too tired, my first post in this thread.

Finally, let me just say that your putative argument falls afoul of the guideline of let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. Simply because a law doesn't eliminate all acts it outlaws doesn't mean that law should be stricken.

I'd suggest that you start thinking without allowing your agenda (obvious as it is) to be your mental filter (again, obvious).

It's amazing how someone can say something like this after a terrible mass shooting in a country with strict gun control. Every time there is a mass shooting in the US people say how we need to ban guns to prevent tragedies like this is the future. Every time. The overall murder rate is never brought up. And do you know why that is? Well maybe because it has little affect on the overall murder rate. It certainly didn't have any affect in England when gun laws were enacted in 1964 and the crime rate when up  or stayed relatively similar throughout the next decade.

People always make the case 'well look at the low crime rate in Europe' by which of course they mean only western Europe, all of which certainly has low violence but all of which doesn't even have strict gun control. Meanwhile the crime rate in Eastern Europe is sky high with similar gun control laws. On top of that western Europe has always had a lower crime rate than the US, even when their gun laws were similar. These are the facts that most people on both sides of this debate are terribly ignorant of and incidentally the more important and interesting conversation.

I'm going to agree with you even if we did ban gun's or have a heavy restriction on them people would start killing each other 
with knives and if someone is crazy enough a sword. The issue isn't with restriction there is more to it than that because well theology 
plays a role in violence and other factors as well.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I'm going to agree with you even if we did ban gun's or have a heavy restriction on them people would start killing each other 
with knives and if someone is crazy enough a sword.

But when someone does go on a rampage there is a reason that they choose to use guns instead of swords or knives.

[The Grand Nudger]

When the CDC was still researching gun crime (lol), they stated unequivocally that they could find no causal relationship between guns laws and a reduction in crime, such as murder.  Another anomalous fact in the periphery of the overall gun control debate, is that gun ownership in the US is increasing while gun crime (and particularly murder) is decreasing.   One of my favorites, as mentioned in my last post, is that there are states that achieve the same rates of firearm related homocide as nations that have banned (or severely restricted) guns. Some of those states have such lax gun laws that they, effectively, have -no- gun laws.

My personal opinion, is that the gun control "debate" is little more than a political lever which can be used to achieve a given politicians ends.  He knows that he can rely on a vote x.....and that gives him the opportunity for riders. A way that well meaning people are manipulated into supporting legislation (and legislators) which will not achieve the end they wish to see realized, while creating a manufactured division between us, also exploitable.

[dyresand]

I'm going to agree with you even if we did ban gun's or have a heavy restriction on them people would start killing each other 
with knives and if someone is crazy enough a sword.

But when someone does go on a rampage there is a reason that they choose to use guns instead of swords or knives.

Yeah because it's really effective and anyways i doubt were going to have any serious new gun regulation anytime soon.