Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
Gun Violence Statistics
Please read this and then tell me why having guns in the home is such a good idea???
(
Please read this and then tell me why having guns in the home is such a good idea???
(
Guns
- Thread starter Peter Parka
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
57Replies
-
1KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
HisHoliness
Banned
Your question is presumptuous, which pisses me off. I have a feeling you meant it to be. So I'll send one back at you: What's the danger of owning firearms if proper safety and storage techniques are used?
Also, these facts are just dumb, but I know they appeal to people who think as ridiculously as you do. I'll show you the calculation of deaths per year, using the data you supplied and compare the US with the UK and Germany. Let it be known, that these figures do not include the numbers of illegal immigrants, who would be buying guns and murdering, as your story claims. That only serves to hurt your numbers.
Populations (estimates found through Google as of July 2007:
US: 301,139,947
UK: 60,776,238
GER: 82,400,996
In order to use the data from your website, I'd need the child populations, which I could not find for any country other than the United States. The US was 35% child population i.e. under age 18. Assuming that all these countries are on equal playing field insofar as their postindustrial social climate, we can assume a similar child population percentage in Germany and the United Kingdom.
Child Populations:
US: 105,398,981
UK: 21,271,684
GER: 28,840,349
Child Deaths according to your provided website:
US: 3,012
UK: 19
GER: 57
Percentage of Child population terminated by firearms:
US: .00285796%
UK: .00008932%
GER: .00019764%
That, my friends is that actual price paid for our right to bear arms. Our country is depleted of .00286796% of it's youth population each year. And for me: a law abiding, gun operating American, I am perfectly fine with that number.
The way to lower that number in the United States is not by the ridiculous and tedious task of banning firearms, but by advocating proper gun safety, storage, and registering.
I'd also like to point out the vast differences between the United States and the UK. Go get a map. The United States is a large body. The feasibility of removing all the guns from the US is zero. Also, there are not the resources necessary to patrol and monitor the importation of illegal firearms. Remember the last time a controlled substance was completely banned? Prohibition. And it only cemented in a legacy of mafia activity. This wouldn't be any different.
So to Peter I can only say this: when in Rome, buddy. We are two different countries and our operations reflect these differences. Bury your axe on this subject already, because the circumsances will never change.
Also, these facts are just dumb, but I know they appeal to people who think as ridiculously as you do. I'll show you the calculation of deaths per year, using the data you supplied and compare the US with the UK and Germany. Let it be known, that these figures do not include the numbers of illegal immigrants, who would be buying guns and murdering, as your story claims. That only serves to hurt your numbers.
Populations (estimates found through Google as of July 2007:
US: 301,139,947
UK: 60,776,238
GER: 82,400,996
In order to use the data from your website, I'd need the child populations, which I could not find for any country other than the United States. The US was 35% child population i.e. under age 18. Assuming that all these countries are on equal playing field insofar as their postindustrial social climate, we can assume a similar child population percentage in Germany and the United Kingdom.
Child Populations:
US: 105,398,981
UK: 21,271,684
GER: 28,840,349
Child Deaths according to your provided website:
US: 3,012
UK: 19
GER: 57
Percentage of Child population terminated by firearms:
US: .00285796%
UK: .00008932%
GER: .00019764%
That, my friends is that actual price paid for our right to bear arms. Our country is depleted of .00286796% of it's youth population each year. And for me: a law abiding, gun operating American, I am perfectly fine with that number.
The way to lower that number in the United States is not by the ridiculous and tedious task of banning firearms, but by advocating proper gun safety, storage, and registering.
I'd also like to point out the vast differences between the United States and the UK. Go get a map. The United States is a large body. The feasibility of removing all the guns from the US is zero. Also, there are not the resources necessary to patrol and monitor the importation of illegal firearms. Remember the last time a controlled substance was completely banned? Prohibition. And it only cemented in a legacy of mafia activity. This wouldn't be any different.
So to Peter I can only say this: when in Rome, buddy. We are two different countries and our operations reflect these differences. Bury your axe on this subject already, because the circumsances will never change.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
Wow, you're really pissed off about what could suggest a small infringement compared to people dying and you're not bothered about how rude you might sound stating this. Personally I'm more concerned about peoples safety and I wasn't rude either about this, I know my own country has issues too. I'm posting this on a mainly US forum as something which would mainly interest US people. I've posted stuff about other countries here but unfortunately most Americans don't seem very interested unless its something about their own country or Iraq, thats not my fault.
I do find it very strange that people in the US (and other countries!) get so pissed off about reducing gun deaths in case they cant have easy access to a gun but are quick to condemn smoking (health risks I know!) which is not nearly such a cause of innocent deaths.
I do find it very strange that people in the US (and other countries!) get so pissed off about reducing gun deaths in case they cant have easy access to a gun but are quick to condemn smoking (health risks I know!) which is not nearly such a cause of innocent deaths.
HisHoliness
Banned
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for reducing gun deaths. But your question presumes that the only way to do so is by banning them, which is ludicrous.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
No where did I suggest banning them, I simply asked why it should be a good idea them kept in peoples homes, what's wrong with them being kept safely in gun clubs ect? Maybe you should have read my post more thoroughly before jumping to that conclusion.
HisHoliness
Banned
No where did I suggest banning them, I simply asked why it should be a good idea them kept in peoples homes, what's wrong with them being kept safely in gun clubs ect? Maybe you should have read my post more thoroughly before jumping to that conclusion.
Because that's what you've expressed in previous threads.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm softening, please respond to what I've posted here.
This is to HH.
I can't see anywhere that Peter posted a personal attack on you, re guns or otherwise, but you have replied a bit full on and with tension and I don't see why.
However, I am not asking why either, neither do I wish to know, as that is between you and him.
He isn't reflecting on his previous posts here though as you suggested and I can only see it was this thread only, he is referring to.
I see his point, it is worrying more and more these days, but he did I believe, copy that article here, rather than write it himself, so he isn't the one dictating any ideals or otherwise.
Don't take it so hard and try not to jump down his throat.
If I had seen it I may well have posted it too, for opinions, but not to be personal or to be got at.
Debate, people, please remember that - not personal attacks huh?
Stay friendly.
I can't see anywhere that Peter posted a personal attack on you, re guns or otherwise, but you have replied a bit full on and with tension and I don't see why.
However, I am not asking why either, neither do I wish to know, as that is between you and him.
He isn't reflecting on his previous posts here though as you suggested and I can only see it was this thread only, he is referring to.
I see his point, it is worrying more and more these days, but he did I believe, copy that article here, rather than write it himself, so he isn't the one dictating any ideals or otherwise.
Don't take it so hard and try not to jump down his throat.
If I had seen it I may well have posted it too, for opinions, but not to be personal or to be got at.
Debate, people, please remember that - not personal attacks huh?
Stay friendly.
I strongly support the individual right to bear arms. I also strongly support legislation to make gun owners responsible for their weapons. Here's an interesting article about the effect of laws making the gun owner responsible if someone is injured by a child getting the firearm. Gun ownership should be all about gun safety, and this study backs that up.
State gun safe storage laws and child mortality du...[Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997] - PubMed Result
State gun safe storage laws and child mortality du...[Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997] - PubMed Result
Here's another more recent study. Unintentional child deaths by firearms are apparently decreasing much faster than any other group. I find that to be a good thing.
The effect of child access prevention laws on unintentional child firearm fatalities 1979-2000[Journal of Trauma. 2006] - PubMed Result
The effect of child access prevention laws on unintentional child firearm fatalities 1979-2000[Journal of Trauma. 2006] - PubMed Result
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
Do you think a gun is more likely to harm a child or innocent party in the home more or less than it would hurt a robber or other fellon?
Neither. Guns are inanimate objects, they seek to harm no one. :cool
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
Well if you're going to get all anal about it
Do you think someone shooting a gun (anyone who gets hold of it) is more likely to harm a child or innocent party in the home more or less than it would hurt a robber or other fellon?
if 80 people (8 of which are children)die each day in america then that would indicate to me that there is an underlying problem,and i fund those statistics frightening.
i agree with donny that in a country where gun ownership is a cultural and historical phenomenon,that the call for the banning of firearms is just never going to become a reality.
there is always talk of responsible gun owners in pro firearm discussions,well with those stats id say that there appears to be too many unresponsible people being given what the US would call a RIGHT to bear arms,and i would suggest that that needs to be addressed before the next of todays quota lies bleeding.
8 kids a day? bloody hell if one kid gets shot here its big news due to it being a not all that common occurance.
incidently i live on a hunting estate in shropshire ,and many of my neighbours own shotguns,even my own daughter(porphyria)has experienced hunting and shooting
personnally -i dont like guns
i agree with donny that in a country where gun ownership is a cultural and historical phenomenon,that the call for the banning of firearms is just never going to become a reality.
there is always talk of responsible gun owners in pro firearm discussions,well with those stats id say that there appears to be too many unresponsible people being given what the US would call a RIGHT to bear arms,and i would suggest that that needs to be addressed before the next of todays quota lies bleeding.
8 kids a day? bloody hell if one kid gets shot here its big news due to it being a not all that common occurance.
incidently i live on a hunting estate in shropshire ,and many of my neighbours own shotguns,even my own daughter(porphyria)has experienced hunting and shooting
personnally -i dont like guns
I wasn't being anal, I included a smiley...that eliminates analness.
Too answer your question...nobody can answer your question...it's too vague. I think anyone's opinion would just be based on their like or dislike of gun ownership.
Too answer your question...nobody can answer your question...it's too vague. I think anyone's opinion would just be based on their like or dislike of gun ownership.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
It really isnt that difficult to answer!
I know that here in Ireland if you own a gun then you have to have it stored in a metal gun cabinet securely attached to the wall and locked with the gun owner being the only keyholder.In most instances these are checked at the location the gun is kept by a member of the local police force.It works pretty well here with little or no incidents of children being accidentally killed or injured by legally held weapons.
Peter Parka
Well-Known Member
I know what a big thing it is to own a gun in the USA so do you think maybe this would be a good law to avoid innocent people dying? If not, why not?
im used to guns being stored much in the same way and it works.
if theyre not for hunting or target shooting ie a sport(in which case stored at the club) then they are for killing people and so should not be kept in peoples homes
if it is culturally acceptable to keep firearms at home and all gunowners do ,then any criminal will assume that you have a gun at hand and shoot you.is this maybe the root of these shocking statistics?
if theyre not for hunting or target shooting ie a sport(in which case stored at the club) then they are for killing people and so should not be kept in peoples homes
if it is culturally acceptable to keep firearms at home and all gunowners do ,then any criminal will assume that you have a gun at hand and shoot you.is this maybe the root of these shocking statistics?
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members