Why More Americans Want to Own Guns

[Gawdzilla]

Fair point because if the Chicago PD sees you pissing on the street 10 of them will blow you away.

Ten out of how many?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I don't mean to take sides or anything but i do hope there is some statistical data that muscle cars kills more people than guns..?

On highway deaths vs civilian gun deaths? I know that's not exactly what you said, but when I think of drunken highway accidents, the classic example which comes to mind is the impulsive wanker who stumbles out of the bar and crawls behind the wheel of his two-ton substitute penis.

[Ben Davis]

Yeah, easy. The main firearms act in England was in 1968, and the second important one was in 1988.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom



Here is a chart with the UK homicide rate, you see a small but steady increase post 68, which was probably mostly due to a younger population and similarly 1988 homicide continues to rise. You don't see a real drop until recent years, when the homicide rate has dropped significantly in most developed countries and dramatically in the US despite the abundance of guns. What you don't see is any correlation between gun control and a drop in the murder rate. I'd love to see that evidence, but it's never presented. If banning guns really reduced murder, we'd see that evidence clear as day and every anti-gun person would be able to point to it. Instead the claim is just made that gun laws work without having to be backed up by evidence for some reason.

https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rat...abolished/

---

Hi Cap'n,

Not true, I'm afraid. The 1920 act was the real game-changer, allowing the government to control the arms trade and remove guns from circulation after WWI. All the 1968 act did was combine all previous acts (1903, 1920 & 1938) with only minor changes. But although the UK has one of the lowest gun death rates in the world, that's primarily because we've had strict & well enforced gun control for so long (~100 years) that we no longer have any mainstream culture of gun ownership, neither are there any environmental pressures (like in the US) that increase propensity to own guns according to region.

If you want evidence of the effectiveness of enacting gun controls, you need look no further than Australia. Since the 1996 changes in law, deaths by guns have dropped by nearly 70%. It's very simple: if you want to reduce deaths by firearms, improve controls and restrict availability. The most dramatic stat is that prior to 1996, there were 13 mass shootings in a 17 year period; since 1996, there have been none.

Now, that doesn't mean that murder rates will necessarily decrease; that's a misdirection because there are many different ways to murder other than guns and there are so many sociological factors involved that no one seriously thinks that the 'golden bullet' solution to reducing murder rates is gun control. We have to measure what's causal: guns are a primary cause of gun-related deaths.

Consequently, I'm in favour of strict gun controls.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

If you can point to some figures which I could reference, I'd be very happy - frankly I've had to take the word of the anti-gunners here, who make the claim that violence is down where the guns are banned, and nobody else seems to have offered a denial, even though there are numerous gun owners on this site.

Yeah, easy. The main firearms act in England was in 1968, and the second important one was in 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_p...ed_Kingdom



Here is a chart with the UK homicide rate, you see a small but steady increase post 68, which was probably mostly due to a younger population and similarly 1988 homicide continues to rise. You don't see a real drop until recent years, when the homicide rate has dropped significantly in most developed countries and dramatically in the US despite the abundance of guns. What you don't see is any correlation between gun control and a drop in the murder rate. I'd love to see that evidence, but it's never presented. If banning guns really reduced murder, we'd see that evidence clear as day and every anti-gun person would be able to point to it. Instead the claim is just made that gun laws work without having to be backed up by evidence for some reason.

https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rat...abolished/

Thanks!

[CapnAwesome]

Yeah, easy. The main firearms act in England was in 1968, and the second important one was in 1988.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom



Here is a chart with the UK homicide rate, you see a small but steady increase post 68, which was probably mostly due to a younger population and similarly 1988 homicide continues to rise. You don't see a real drop until recent years, when the homicide rate has dropped significantly in most developed countries and dramatically in the US despite the abundance of guns. What you don't see is any correlation between gun control and a drop in the murder rate. I'd love to see that evidence, but it's never presented. If banning guns really reduced murder, we'd see that evidence clear as day and every anti-gun person would be able to point to it. Instead the claim is just made that gun laws work without having to be backed up by evidence for some reason.

https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rat...abolished/

---

Hi Cap'n,

Not true, I'm afraid. The 1920 act was the real game-changer, allowing the government to control the arms trade and remove guns from circulation after WWI. All the 1968 act did was combine all previous acts (1903, 1920 & 1938) with only minor changes. But although the UK has one of the lowest gun death rates in the world, that's primarily because we've had strict & well enforced gun control for so long (~100 years) that we no longer have any mainstream culture of gun ownership, neither are there any environmental pressures (like in the US) that increase propensity to own guns according to region.

If you want evidence of the effectiveness of enacting gun controls, you need look no further than Australia. Since the 1996 changes in law, deaths by guns have dropped by nearly 70%. It's very simple: if you want to reduce deaths by firearms, improve controls and restrict availability. The most dramatic stat is that prior to 1996, there were 13 mass shootings in a 17 year period; since 1996, there have been none.

Now, that doesn't mean that murder rates will necessarily decrease; that's a misdirection because there are many different ways to murder other than guns and there are so many sociological factors involved that no one seriously thinks that the 'golden bullet' solution to reducing murder rates is gun control. We have to measure what's causal: guns are a primary cause of gun-related deaths.

Consequently, I'm in favour of strict gun controls.

That's not evidence of what is claimed, which is a drop in homicide rate. What's the point of having low gun deaths if your murder rate is still the same? Would you much rather live in a society with low gun deaths or a low homicide rate? Homicide rate is the only stat that matters. 'Gun deaths' is just a propghanda statistic designed to look like a murder rate and designed to make it look like the murder rate drops. But if it doesn't actually, what's the point?

[The Grand Nudger]

The mainstream culture of ownership is not responsible for gun crime in the states, and mass shootings are an infinitesimal portion of our gun problem.  

If you want to measure whats causal, let's do so.  Six of ten gun deaths are suicides, the rate of suicide is increasing while the rate of homocide is decreasing. The remaining four are inextricably linked to our war on drugs.  

Contextually, the vast majority of guns and gun owners are concentrated in rural areas which have statistically low rates of gun crime (and violent crime overall).  The vast majority of guns and gun owners will never be involved in either a homocide or a suicide.

Any law we pass will effect that greater number, and almost by definition will not effect the other - they've already shown they're willing to break the law. With respect, the history of the UK and the history of the US have produced vastly different cultures. The guns have always been with us. We didn't suddenly become incompetent. Barring that one little cops vs robbers spike in the data, our murder rate is moving in the direction we want it to. IMO, addressing the war on drugs directly will do more to reduce gun crime than any gun restrictions or bans ever could, and it will also decrease the rate of violent crime overall. It would also be far easier to accomplish than any challenge to the 2nd amendment, while...likely, saving us a great deal of money. If we wanted to address the -greater- , but admittedly less sexy portion of gun death, wider access to better mental health services is probably going to be the most effective approach. Bet we'd catch some mass shooters in that net too.

[Minimalist]

Fair point because if the Chicago PD sees you pissing on the street 10 of them will blow you away.

Ten out of how many?

Does it matter?

[Gawdzilla]

Ten out of how many?

Does it matter?

To some people, I guess not.

[Minimalist]

If there are 50 cops there and only 10 shoot you for pissing on the sidewalk the other 40 will swear you had a gun in your hand and not your dick.

[Gawdzilla]

If there are 50 cops there and only 10 shoot you for pissing on the sidewalk  the other 40 will swear you had a gun in your hand and not your dick.

Based on... ?