The USA Gun Problem

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Paranoid much?

Do any of you guys own a handgun? Well if you do, the government knows it. They know the make model and serial number.... does that mean they are going to come take it away?

:willy_nilly:

I own many.....And I own many pre-brady bill guns i.e. NON-REGISTERED

And it's not about paranoia Tim...Again, it's about not giving any more powers to the government

 

[thatguyjeff]

Guns are just another tool for criminals to use in the commission of a crime. If we were able to somehow make all the guns in the US magically disappear, what would happen? Crimes would still be committed in much the same way with the same frequency. The criminals would just find another tool.

If you think of it that way (if all guns magically disappeared), then I just don't see there being any valid arguements for changing gun policy one way or another. It would have no effect with regard to overall crime and violence.

That is, unless your goal is to simply reduce "gun" crimes. But what good does that really do when the same crimes (minus the guns) are still being committed?

Let's assume that there's a flat/equal chance of someone attempting to rob you every time you leave the house - say 2% chance. Does it make you feel any better whether there's a gun involved or not? Do you believe there is any difference in the possibility that you would be injured while being robbed whether there is a gun involved or not?

And I too own unregistered, legal firearms.

 

[AUFred]

Paranoid much?

Do any of you guys own a handgun? Well if you do, the government knows it. They know the make model and serial number.... does that mean they are going to come take it away?

:willy_nilly:

Not paranoid realistic. I own quite a few guns, handguns & long guns. I also have a pistol permit which I renew annually.

 

[Meirionnydd]

These gun facts are as old and perhaps a little older than your link.

'Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries” which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13%.71

71 Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University (1997) and Kopel (1992 and 1999)'

In the UK the firearms amendment act was passed in 1997, after the Dunblane Massacre. That law outlawed most types of firearms in the UK, before that, gun laws were quite lenient, somewhat comparable to some jurisdictions United States...

So you'll forgive my scepticism when the source cites references from 1997 and 1992.

Well this is page 10 and what I wanted you to see.

Where to start...

With all the 'facts' under the 'crime and guns' heading... It's pretty much consistent with crime in general. So yes, in regards to violent crime around 75% of time victims know their attacker. Gun victims aren't special or anything.

And be assured that 0% of the 17 children killed in Dunblane had prior arrest records.

In reference to the graph, correlation does not imply causation (Something you learn in Criminology). There is no empirical evidence that the handgun supply affect property crimes. And you see how the both correlation statistics are drawn from different sources all together (NVCS and the BATE firearm ownership estimates). Meaning that this graph was pulled together by a bunch of gun nuts without any regard to proper research methods.

And according to the IVCS conducted in 2004, Australia and the United States have almost identical rates of property crime (such as burglary)... We have very tough gun control laws.. you don't.

Freedom comes at a price and to hold onto our freedom we must be able to defend it.

I can't do a comparison on deaths between the UK and the US, but I can show you this.

First off, take a country like Japan. With high rates of gun ownership. In a recent study, one-third of women acknowledged being the victims of frequent abuse by their (male) partner, so honestly, I don't see your point when posting these 'statistics'

AND. Also realise that reporting rates for sexual offences against women are VERY, VERY low, as are conviction rates. In Australia during the 1990's (as referenced to in the graph) the police didn't exactly pay the most attention to crimes against women (rape, domestic violence), obviously this changed, that can help explain the reasons for the increase of cases.

In 2000, the UK changed the way they collect crime data, Police services started recording alleged offences, instead of cases with evidence is present. 'Evidence' is sometimes difficult to present in a sexual assault case... As a result, the home office estimated that violent offences increased by about 23% in a three year period.

Realise that just because there is a statistical increase or decrease in the prevalence of a crime does not mean that, that type of crime has actually 'increased' overtime, reporting rates rise and drop accordingly.

Sexual offences are in most cases committed by someone the victim knows, and in a residential setting. This little excerpt makes it look like that rapes are committed by a complete stranger on the street, and women HAVE to carry weapons with them at all times to protect themselves.

IMO you have a false sense of security. You have no way to protect yourself if somebody breaks into your home and they have a gun. And yes, I feel much safer here in the US knowing that if somebody breaks into my house while I'm home I can defend myself and family. The chance of us even having a weapon deters most criminals.

IMO you're paranoid. Residential burglary is uncommon, and done at times when the house is empty.

Also in the US, the chances are higher that the criminal will have a firearm in his possession when breaking into your home, can't say the same for Australia and the UK though.

That statement right there shows that these figures are not 100% reliable.

Actually, they are reliable. Homicide statistics are based on 'administrative data', which is as close as you can get to 'fact'. It just gives a word of warning to anyone trying to compare data from different jurisdictions. In Australia, 'dangerous driving causing death' is not classed as homicide, yet in other counties, it probably is.

But anyway, I find this a good comparison.

Homicide victims killed by a firearm in Australia - 13%
Homicide victims killed by a firearm in the US - 69%

All this debate and now the name calling? lol
I understand how percentages work. If you think having an extra 250,000,000 people doesn't affect the statistics then I think you are mistaken.

.... Are you serious?..

Population doesn't really have a role (seems there is a lack on consensus on the spelling) in the prevalence or rate of crime (country wise), Russia and Cambodia have higher homicide rates that you, and a lower population.

 

[Meirionnydd]

I do not think I've heard of any shoot outs here in the US since probably one of the school shooting incidents. Actually I take back, the incident of 4 policeman being shot and killed. But the stuff that goes on here in the US is minute when you compare to sections of Africa or South America. Some of the statistics from the Wikipedia link showed over 50 deaths associated to gun shot incidents per 100,000.

It's amazing what one day can do.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Gunman kills 13 in New York siege

EDIT: Actually, I just finished reading that 'crimefacts' PDF file that you posted. It's shit, and void of academic or factual value. The footnotes are mostly irrelevant and useless... Go ahead and check one, just any random footnote, you'll either see that nothing relevant is there or the comment is taken out of context.

Sources are highly partisan and biased. For example - 'Gary Mauser , “The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales”, The Fraser Institute, 2003' (lol, they can't even reference correctly) talked about the 'failure' of gun registration in Australia... Instead, they could of looked up information from the AIC about gun registration. As you might guess, they'd might have come to a different conclusion.

Statistics cited are dated from as early as 1960. Comparisons are made between the 1980's (where crime was at a record high) and 1990's (where crime was steadily decreasing), normally in argument against gun control. I also find it funny that when they try to debunk objective research by a reputable source, they use news articles and highly partisan studies.

But yeah... You should probably use something else to argue your point. I'd probably fail my Criminology courses if I tried using something like that as a source in any assignment.

 

[Strauss]

Paranoid much?

Do any of you guys own a handgun? Well if you do, the government knows it. They know the make model and serial number.... does that mean they are going to come take it away?

:willy_nilly:

That is actually a yes and no answer as to whether the "government" knows (which government are you talking about?). In any event, the forms that you fill out when purchasing a handgun are maintained at the store not a central location within the federal government. Its why ATF agents go to stores to review compliance with federal sale laws.

 

[BigRicky]

That is actually a yes and no answer as to whether the "government" knows (which government are you talking about?). In any event, the forms that you fill out when purchasing a handgun are maintained at the store not a central location within the federal government. Its why ATF agents go to stores to review compliance with federal sale laws.

You guys buy your guns at gun stores? Oh man.

 

[Alien Allen]

You guys buy your guns at gun stores? Oh man.

Yes

We quit selling them at the grocery stores a couple years ago

 

[Strauss]

You guys buy your guns at gun stores? Oh man.

Well its because liberals got all upset when you would test fire the gun while buying them from a street vendor.

 

[Tim]

An interesting side note, I'm not sure how it was around the rest of the US, but here locally and I think in most areas of the south, pawn shops and everybody else that sold fire arms sold out all their ammo and nearly all their stock of weapons when Obama was elected.

Freedom comes at a price and to hold onto our freedom we must be able to defend it.

You make it seem as if gun shoot outs are a regular occurrence.

I will also enjoy having a fire arm if the time ever comes where there is a revolution in our country (God forbid it).

I didn't say anything about them taking guns, although you should be well aware that has been an established agenda since the first Clinton regime.

Three police officers have been killed by a gunman in Pittsburgh - the second mass shooting in the US in 24 hours.
The officers were responding to an emergency call from the house of the gunman, named as Richard Poplawski, 23.
Police said he was waiting, armed with rifles and a bulletproof vest. He shot two officers as they entered the house, and a third who tried to help them.
He then traded gunfire with police for four hours before being injured and giving himself up.
His friends said he had recently lost his job, and was worried that US President Barack Obama was about to ban guns.
The shooting comes a day after a gunman killed 13 people in New York state.

Here is the problem... Ever since Obama decided to run for office, the NRA has been scaring its members with false information that he was going to tax their ammo and take away their guns. They were so effective at this fucking bullshit propaganda campaign that gun and ammunition sales went through the roof. These idiots were stockpiling guns because they actually believe the crap the NRA was putting out to their members. And now 3 officers are dead... I hope to god they look into this, and if this guy was driven to do this from the propaganda that came out of the NRA, I hope there are criminal charges brought against them.

I hope to god that this is an isolated incident. Obama needs to come out and publically reassure these crazies that no one is coming to take their guns.

This is exactly the reason that the government will never try to take the guns away from Americans.

 

[Alien Allen]

I hope to god that this is an isolated incident. Obama needs to come out and publically reassure these crazies that no one is coming to take their guns.

Only problem is he would not be telling the truth. He would love to see guns outlawed. But he knows it will not happen in the foreseeable future so he does the next best thing and keep his mouth shut.

I think you will find the problem has more to do with the felons that are getting them. Far too many violent felons are getting released. Way too many repeat offenders. IMO

 

[Tim]

Only problem is he would not be telling the truth. He would love to see guns outlawed.

And you know this how? This is the BS that I was talking about. He has never said that he wants guns outlawed, nothing at all to that effect... well unless you are translating his words through the NRA.

This is the crap that is perpetuated by people who are only guessing at what he would like to do. And this is the crap that fuels the crazies who do have guns.

 

[Strauss]

And you know this how? This is the BS that I was talking about. He has never said that he wants guns outlawed, nothing at all to that effect... well unless you are translating his words through the NRA.

Actually, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. he defends the right to own guns but supports the right of local governments to ban gun ownership. :confused

Found here:Gun Control: 2008 contenders' views

His position:

Click here for 11 full quotes by Barack Obama OR click here for Barack Obama on other issues.

* Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
* FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
* Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
* 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
* Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
* Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
* Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

 

[Alien Allen]

And you know this how? This is the BS that I was talking about. He has never said that he wants guns outlawed, nothing at all to that effect... well unless you are translating his words through the NRA.

This is the crap that is perpetuated by people who are only guessing at what he would like to do. And this is the crap that fuels the crazies who do have guns.

He is a politician. He knows what it takes to get elected. He aint that stupid to be so obvious. You have to read between the lines. There is enough he has stated which makes it pretty clear what his end game would be. If he could do it. I am not saying he has that on the agenda. I am just saying it seems to be his wish if he could get away with it.

 

[Tim]

Actually, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. he defends the right to own guns but supports the right of local governments to ban gun ownership. :confused

Found here:Gun Control: 2008 contenders' views

His position:

I don't see that as contradictory. Here is his exact quote.

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

He is a politician. He knows what it takes to get elected. He aint that stupid to be so obvious. You have to read between the lines. There is enough he has stated which makes it pretty clear what his end game would be. If he could do it. I am not saying he has that on the agenda. I am just saying it seems to be his wish if he could get away with it.

Read between what lines? Go to the link above and read his exact quotes. He does not come off as wanting to ban guns at all. The worst you can say about his stance is that he supports local communities regulating guns... but that's a far cry from the federal government banning guns.

 

[Strauss]

I don't see that as contradictory. Here is his exact quote.

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

"Constrain the exercise of that right" is double speak and exactly what Washington, D.C. claimed with its out and out ban of handguns. The Supreme Court threw that bit of wisdom out the door.

Make no mistake, if Obama could ban the sale of handguns he would, his actions speak louder than his words, to wit:

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”

Yeah, blame it on a staffer.

Found here>Barack Obama on Gun Control

 

[All Else Failed]

Nothing should be done. I'm serious.


There are literally thousands of gun laws in my state alone, and they don't even work. So whats more laws going to do but hurt law abiding people? Rights are more important than lives. If gun related murders shot up 100% tomorrow guns should still be completely legal.

And before anyone jumps in, I want to try this from a different angle. Apparently its your right to own guns but its also an undeniable fact that there is a gun abuse problem in your country which costs many lives. So without taking away your right to shoot guns, what do you think is the best way to reduce this problem?

Personally I think, ban hand guns in the open and make them only available to shoot at licensed gunclubs which have met a security standard as to how well they are locked up. Make rifles only accessable through strict regulation and also a security check of how well they are locked up when not in use. Make licensees seriously responsible for this and liable to a minimum 5 year prison sentence if their guns fall into the wrong hands through their own carelessness. Minimum 5 years in prison for anyone carrying a gun illegally.

Thoughts?

Nanny state silliness.

Taking concealable handguns out of the private citizen's hands only puts THEM in danger. The criminal who will ALWAYS have access to illegally attained guns will have free reign knowing all citizens will be unarmed.


5 years? Thats ridiculous. Do you know how crammed US jails are already? Plus what if sooenes gun is stolen and it wasn't their fault?

I've put these stats up enough times but I'll put them up again for the benifit of the thread. It really isn't deniable there is a gun problem in the USA and it is even more worrying that people such as yourself are not aware of this, admitting a problem is always the first step to dealing with it.


Gun Facts

No, there is a violence related problem in the US. Not a gun problem.


Again, rights are more important than lives.

As an American sho doesn't shoot guns.. I don't care.. As an American who has seen the hydocondriacs and obsessive and obsessive compulsive i thhink doing aay with guns is a bad idea. My moms man is OC and thinks the world as we know it will cease to exist. I think that we all shopuld know how ro hunt for food whethether we want to or not... o dunno if this was releivant to anything but i don't care.

As an American you should care about our constitution and the rights it bestows upon us. Just because you don't own firearms doesn't mean you should not care about it.

 

[daniellllleee]

You cannot ban guns. People have weapons, whether it be for a collection, some kind of family history to it, hunting, whatever.
Maybe they should raise the price of the bullets and make them harder to get?
I don't know.

Making them illegal wont stop people from killing people or themselves. Killing people is illegal and that doesn't stop them...

 

[All Else Failed]

Ok, you win. Guess the fact that there always seems to be some big gun shootout in the USA resulting in a load of deaths, all the time really isn't a problem. :smiley24: And for everyone is the world, there seems to be about 10 in the USA. Wonder how safe cops in your country life Veronica and Natasha feel?

But who cares, eh? There really isnt a problem and you are much safer in the US eh? Enjoy your freedom. Personally I feel a lot safer knowing that I am unlikely to be killed if a burglar breaks in my home.

Enjoy your nanny state where the Government can piss all over you. You guys just gave up your right to own firearms years ago, and let the Government walk all over you. What happened to British toughness? What happened to the Brits who defended their homeland from the Nazis? You brits should WORSHIP guns since they helped save your asses (Well, we did but thats besides the point).

 

[Meirionnydd]

Enjoy your nanny state where the Government can piss all over you. You guys just gave up your right to own firearms years ago, and let the Government walk all over you. What happened to British toughness? What happened to the Brits who defended their homeland from the Nazis? You brits should WORSHIP guns since they helped save your asses (Well, we did but thats besides the point).

They'd probably be more inclined to worship a Spitfire or Hurricane than a firearm.