Support for Gun Control in US at its Lowest Level in More than 50 Years

Great news, for shooting enthusiasts such as myself, not to mention American freedom.

But what's behind the fundamental shift since the '50s?

Quote:

---

Support for gun control is at its lowest level in more than 50 years, according to a recent Gallup Poll.

In fact, 26 percent of those surveyed think there should be a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized people, reports a Wednesday Gallup poll. On the other hand, 73 percent oppose such a ban — the highest percentage reflecting such sentiment since polling on the issue started in 1959.
Continue Reading

Over the past 50 years, the United States has changed its mind drastically on whether a handgun ban is appropriate. In 1959, 60 percent supported a handgun ban, while only 36 percent opposed it.

With regard to semiautomatic guns known as assault rifles, 53 percent oppose laws that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess them; only 43 percent agree with that sort of ban. This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.

A plurality of respondents — 44 percent — want firearms regulations to be kept as they are now, while 11 percent favor less strict gun laws; 43 percent suggest stricter gun laws are necessary.

Views on gun laws have changed dramatically over the past twenty years to the point where no key demographic subgroup favors a ban on handguns. Only those living in Eastern America, Democrats and those without guns in the household still have majority support for stricter gun laws generally, Gallup reports.

The polling firm suggested that the trend could be a reflection of a rising libertarian feeling in the American population or growing American comfort with guns. One 2008 Gallup poll found widespread agreement with the notion that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to own guns.

The trend did not appear to be related to a rise in gun ownership, which has stayed steady over the past 10 years, or any major shifts in American attitudes towards crime, fear of time, or reports of being victimized, reports Gallup.

This poll was conducted on Oct. 6-9, with a sample of 1,005 adults. The margin of error is plus or minus four percentage points.

---

Hardly surprising with crisis, uncertainty and all that

It could just be that it's out of the news. By 2000, most politicians realized supporting gun control would only hurt their chances.

Gun control and abortion threads in the Backroom, yeah! I still say we need to arm the fetuses to make the procedure more sporting.

That is interesting. It's not like we haven't had high profile handgun shootings. That senator lady was less than a year ago wasn't it?

My educated guess is that it's the result of a lot of work by pro-firearms folks to push for gun rights over the decades.

Plus, a lot of the anti-gun arguments in US politics are based on fear mongering and lies. After a while it becomes clear that the blood in the streets the anti-gun folks always predict if some pro-gun law is passed isn't going to happen.

CR

I can, at a push understand the justification for allowing handgun ownership, but assault rifles? Crackers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

I can, at a push understand the justification for allowing handgun ownership, but assault rifles? Crackers.

---

The 2nd amendment was written to allow the people to overthrow a tyrannical government - for which you need modern rifles.

Also, what are called assault rifles all the time by anti-gun folks (and copied by the media) are actually semi-auto rifles. True, military, assault rifles have the capability to fire fully automatically.

Also, semi-auto rifles are rarely used in crime.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The 2nd amendment was written to allow the people to overthrow a tyrannical government - for which you need modern rifles.

Also, what are called assault rifles all the time by anti-gun folks (and copied by the media) are actually semi-auto rifles. True, military, assault rifles have the capability to fire fully automatically.

Also, semi-auto rifles are rarely used in crime.

CR

---

The practical difference between a semi-auto and full-auto weapon is not as meaningful as the calibur, barrel type, magazine capacity and the type of action the weapon uses. Cut the full auto out of the M-16 and you actually have a more dangerous weapon in most instances because you remove the temptation to "rock and roll", which is pointless execpt for things like room clearence. Most battle rifles, including early version of the M-14 and FAL/SLR were single shot but their range and destructive potential is greater than their replacements, to the extent that reconditioned or similar weapons are being issued for the sort of long range firefights soldiers have in Afganistan.

Your "overthrow tyrannical government" tack is a complete non starter for two reasons.

1. The modern US militias would be rolled over by even your National Guard, to say nothing of the US Army, no chance none. They would be much more vulnerable than, for example, the Afgan tribesmen.

2. From the perspective of the Founding Fathers your government should already have been overthrown, although because of its sheer size and complexity rather than any percieved democratic deficit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The 2nd amendment was written to allow the people to overthrow a tyrannical government - for which you need modern rifles.

---

Unless you add an amendment to include mechanized armor, warplanes, emplacements, the right to fortify centers of populations, SSMs, SAMs, anti radar and thermal jammers, coastal defenses, as well tactical nuclear weaponry and the means to delivery them, you don't stand a chance. You can mimic the tactics of partisan resistance movements that were common during World War II, but honestly, how much support do you think you would get? Could you push your family to live in filth for an unknown amount of time? Can you survive constantly moving through ruins and the wilderness, supplying yourself and others with the provisions you need? This includes stealing, destroying, and using innocents as tactical diversions, as well as other things that are difficult to justify no matter the situation.

Even if you had combat assault rifles, they may very well be confiscated. Tell me, when is the right time to abandon everything and run into the woods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gallup

With regard to semiautomatic guns known as assault rifles, 53 percent oppose laws that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess them; only 43 percent agree with that sort of ban. This year marks the first time that more people were against a ban than for it.

A plurality of respondents — 44 percent — want firearms regulations to be kept as they are now, while 11 percent favor less strict gun laws; 43 percent suggest stricter gun laws are necessary.

---

It seems odd to me that only 43% want to ban assault rifles and 43% want stricter gun laws. Aren't assault rifles already banned in some places in the US? I would have thought more people would support banning assault rifles than would want stricter laws, as some may be happy with the status quo which is sometimes against assault rifles.

I wonder if the wording of the question on assault rifles confused some people - speaking of banning the manufacturing of the weapons? Interpreted literally, everyone should be against banning the manufacturing of assault rifles, at least for their own military. I guess many people in the US would not interpret the question so literally, but we do know that how you word a question can have large impacts on opinion poll data.

those stats tell me more about the perceived average penis size in America than any actual information about guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki

That is interesting. It's not like we haven't had high profile handgun shootings. That senator lady was less than a year ago wasn't it?

---

That's what I was thinking. I've been worried about gun rights since Columbine, but it seems the trend has gone in the other direction despite the recent spate of mass shootings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

1. The modern US militias would be rolled over by even your National Guard, to say nothing of the US Army, no chance none. They would be much more vulnerable than, for example, the Afgan tribesmen.

---

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLoper

Even if you had combat assault rifles, they may very well be confiscated. Tell me, when is the right time to abandon everything and run into the woods?

---

When the government starts confiscating guns! :grin:

Ahaha, gun threads bring out the worst in Europeans without fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

---

yes there is.
there is only way thing nowadays that can keep an overwhelming military force from just rolling over the most determined "insurgent" force.
and that's bad P.R.
the question is, "how far is the big guy willing to go to win?" are they willing to resort to absolute extreme measures if necessary? do they not care how it might look to the rest of the world?....or can they cover it up at the very least?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

There is absolutely no way to make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

---

Oh, of course there is, Afgan fighters are rural sheep herders who play polo with severed heads and brew their coffee over an open fire. By contrast most Americans are urban, shop at Walmart and get their coffee at Starbucks; to say nothing of the obesity rate. Further, despite the Afgans having their collective backsides repeatedly handed to them by US soldiers for over a decade now you would think the US was losing from the moaning going on in the States. To be blunt, not only is the average US citizen profoundly unsuited to armed resistence against your government, they have no stomach for it either. The cries of a few for even laxer gun laws seem like bravado from where I am sitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Oh, of course there is, Afgan fighters are rural sheep herders who play polo with severed heads and brew their coffee over an open fire. By contrast most Americans are urban, shop at Walmart and get their coffee at Starbucks; to say nothing of the obesity rate. Further, despite the Afgans having their collective backsides repeatedly handed to them by US soldiers for over a decade now you would think the US was losing from the moaning going on in the States. To be blunt, not only is the average US citizen profoundly unsuited to armed resistence against your government, they have no stomach for it either. The cries of a few for even laxer gun laws seem like bravado from where I am sitting.

---

You see, by relying on so many assumptions (many of which are little more than poorly reasoned stereotypes), you've already eliminated any certainty in your analysis. There are so many factors that would play in to any such scenario, definitive statements about how it would play out are impossible to make without more specific information. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

You see, by relying on so many assumptions (many of which are little more than poorly reasoned stereotypes), you've already eliminated any certainty in your analysis. There are so many factors that would play in to any such scenario, definitive statements about how it would play out are impossible to make without more specific information. :shrug:

---

Please elaborate.I find this interesting.If you guys can be more clear about the definition of what over throwing a tyrannical government might actually mean in practice?

Higher chance for a Militarist Coup then a 'Revolution' in America where the 'People' overthrow the government.

Based on common social trends and political views alone, nevermind the 'Hardware' involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

to say nothing of the obesity rate

---

Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?

@Panzer, how exactly do you imagine a revolution playing out that does not involve immediate win for the feds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

---

But not for obese people. Obese people tend to roll over and die in such situations primarily because they've ruined the efficiency of their metabolism. That's why you'll find that obese people do not just eat “more” they also complain of being hungry sooner after their meal. By the way, it is a very similar story for those people who “hit the gym” so often but for them it is the energy saving features of the metabolism which no longer work well. (Their body being too big: idle muscle is rather inefficient.)

It's the people who are underweight to slightly overweight and don't work out for the sake of it that survive, or in other words those don't who didn't need a diet in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Survival situations tend to help with the shedding of pounds.

---

If you don't die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If you don't die.

---

actually that also results in weight loss :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Please elaborate.I find this interesting.If you guys can be more clear about the definition of what over throwing a tyrannical government might actually mean in practice?

---

The success or failure of any insurgency is based on a rather large array of factors, such as popular support, size and scope, geographic distribution, resources, money and/or economic situation, political organization and alignment, foreign support, production capacity, and literally thousands more – and those apply to both the insurgent forces and the government. Without outlining a scenario that at least attempts to address some of those specifics, it is rather foolish to make a definitive statement about the success or failure of a hypothetical insurgency.

Further, basing such an assessment purely on the (unsupported) notion that Americans are too fat, lazy, and/or comfortable to mount such a insurgency in comparison to Afghanis reveals a dearth of critical thinking, not only about the potential advantages Americans might enjoy over Afghanis in such a conflict, but about the nature of insurgency itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ACIN

The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?

---

There was one before that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TA

@Panzer, how exactly do you imagine a revolution playing out that does not involve immediate win for the feds?

---

I have no idea. I don't spend much time thinking about the subject as I see it as such a remote possibility. My support for gun rights is based primarily on my belief in personal freedom and my enjoyment of shooting as a hobby and more distantly on the fact that I live in a city with a large, impoverished, and restive black population that very much resembles that which plunged Los Angeles into chaos in 1992. I do not fear government, but a lack of government - and it is good to know that I have options for my and my family's security apart from reliance on the government in case of a breakdown in social order.

A successful insurgency in the United States would likely conform to the conditions laid out in the 2010 RAND study on the subject. There would have to be significant popular support, international sponsorship, availible sanctuary, and a weakening of the federal government. None of these are out of the realm of possibility, especially considering that for a sizable insurgency to even develop, the US would likely have to undergo a signficant transition toward tyranny - one which would alarm the US populace and the international community.

I refuse to believe you guys really imagine a revolt against a tyrannical gov't to look like you are describing it. Heck, there just was one in libya, which clearly involved defecting military units, captured military units, and support from other countries. You don't believe it any more than you believe the 2nd amendment allows nukes, it's just one of the talking points you pull out when you don't want to make an actual argument about gun control :shrug:

Fire arms bring conflict down to wits, ignoring physique and brawn. When I served, it was the combat units that had the lousiest physical training scores. The hospital, admin, supply units etc had all the time to get high two mile run and push up scores. The line units often look out of shape in comparison.

Even if Americans being poorly endowed, fatsos was a halfway worthwhile argument I still can't understand why anyone would give up the right to bear arms just because the military has an even higher level of tech. To me that's all the more reason.

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of? :dizzy2:

There's actually a book written on a modern revolution in the US - Unintended Consequences, wherein the freedom fighters - a group of folks with no central leadership, but a shared hatred of government tyranny, begin killing government agents (mainly ATF) until the federal government gives in to their demands for repeal of unconstitutional laws. There's no formation of groups of rebel soldiers hiding in the mountains then duking it out with the military. In this way the 'rebels' hit the real 'targets' - the government, while avoiding the difficult obstacles - soldiers and other military.

Also noteworthy - in those articles PJ linked about Afghan marksmanship (or lack thereof), the rifles being used to hit the most American soldiers aren't AKs but WWII era rifles that are both more accurate and more powerful. A modern hunting rifle is an improvement over those guns, and is used by many American hunters with even better marksmanship.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

There's actually a book written on a modern revolution in the US - Unintended Consequences, wherein the freedom fighters - a group of folks with no central leadership, but a shared hatred of government tyranny, begin killing government agents (mainly ATF) until the federal government gives in to their demands for repeal of unconstitutional laws. There's no formation of groups of rebel soldiers hiding in the mountains then duking it out with the military. In this way the 'rebels' hit the real 'targets' - the government, while avoiding the difficult obstacles - soldiers and other military.
CR

---

So if terrorists systematically attack federal agents, the federal legislature and most state legislatures will unanimously agree to the demands of said terrorists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I refuse to believe you guys really imagine a revolt against a tyrannical gov't to look like you are describing it. Heck, there just was one in libya, which clearly involved defecting military units, captured military units, and support from other countries. You don't believe it any more than you believe the 2nd amendment allows nukes, it's just one of the talking points you pull out when you don't want to make an actual argument about gun control :shrug:

---

Not really, it was basically the US military that toppled Gaddafi, and his military couldn't compete against the American one, who would bale you guys out? Canada and Mexico? Even assuming the UK and France wanted to help you, rather than back the government, how would we get our gear there? We have one rusty carrier between us and I seriously doubt we could put together a battlegroup around the De Gaulle capable of protecting her from American Carrier groups, subs and land-based air assetts.

More than anything else though, we Europeans (who generally have tighter gun controls and less polarised politcs) can't really imagine that any "rebellion" would be worthwile supporting from an ethical, logistical or political standpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Fire arms bring conflict down to wits, ignoring physique and brawn. When I served, it was the combat units that had the lousiest physical training scores. The hospital, admin, supply units etc had all the time to get high two mile run and push up scores. The line units often look out of shape in comparison.

Even if Americans being poorly endowed, fatsos was a halfway worthwhile argument I still can't understand why anyone would give up the right to bear arms just because the military has an even higher level of tech. To me that's all the more reason.

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of? :dizzy2:

---

Really? I wouldn't know, about that, but I remember that British mechanised infantry used to think of US LI as pretty unfit in compariseon to themselves. That could just be international rivalry though, and I don't know if your experience is repeated accross nations generally. I also don't know where you're from, come to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Also noteworthy - in those articles PJ linked about Afghan marksmanship (or lack thereof), the rifles being used to hit the most American soldiers aren't AKs but WWII era rifles that are both more accurate and more powerful. A modern hunting rifle is an improvement over those guns, and is used by many American hunters with even better marksmanship.

CR

---

This is pretty well known, hence Royal Marines being issued 7.62 calibre rifles without full auto capability to replace SA80II. A bigger bullet perfomrs better over longer ranges than a smaller, lighter, one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The US did have an armed revolution once, it was called the Civil War. How did that turn out?

---

ummmmmmm, no that was not a revolution.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of?

---

You think that the military cannot be turned against "domestic insurgents"?

What a stupid conversation this thread had degraded to


People's support of gun ownership is going to increase in uncertain financial times for a whole host of reasons. In case some of you have been sleeping, the US Government is an abject failure that has failed to stave off even the most basic of problems they were warned about 20, 30, 40 years ago. Considering human nature, beuaracracy, entitlement attitudes of the have-nots and the big picture as a whole, anyone who trusts in the American government to protect them 100% from crime is living on another planet.

@Major: it doesn't help that the USA clings on to a “stupid” constitution, or rather a particularly “stupid” amendment. As has been pointed out before, that amendment and its sentiments are on practical considerations alone completely irrelevant, outmoded and outdated in the modern world -- just like required longbow practice.

You are of course quite right that nobody is seriously expecting people lined up at the walls any day now. Equally, though, the real problem which you highlight might reduce to a failure to keep various services going such as infrastructure and the root cause for that is not necessarily the politicians alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Ahaha, gun threads bring out the worst in Europeans without fail.

---

For a recent comparising of gun attitude. Gas station in neghtbour town got robbed by gun armed robbers. A costumer and two others came to the conclusion that the robbers weren't having serious guns (shot no warning shot), went driving (unarmed) after the muggers and catched them. The guns was shown to be soft air guns.
What are the odds of this making sense in the US?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

There was one before that.

---

Victory or death vs victory or too much vasted resources. Somehow I think civil wars have slightly higher motivation involved, compared to colonial independence. Not counting how much different the equipment has changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Also, you guys who are saying the military is too strong for the civilians so abandon your gun rights, who do you think the military is comprised of? :dizzy2:

---

Hopefully people that is not intending to make a military coup or shoot at civilians? That's were the ideological battle to create or prevent as successful armed rebellion takes place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

People's support of gun ownership is going to increase in uncertain financial times for a whole host of reasons. In case some of you have been sleeping, the US Government is an abject failure that has failed to stave off even the most basic of problems they were warned about 20, 30, 40 years ago. Considering human nature, beuaracracy, entitlement attitudes of the have-nots and the big picture as a whole, anyone who trusts in the American government to protect them 100% from crime is living on another planet.

---

Reality vs ideas. Who will win?

You do know that the crime rate is much lower today than 20 years ago? And lower than 30 years ago. THE GOVERMENT SUCKS AND CAN'T DO ITS JOB, SO WE NEED THE GUNS TO PROTECT OURSELF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

ummmmmmm, no that was not a revolution.....

---

STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS. PROTECT OUR FREEDOM FROM THE YANKIES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

There was one before that.

---

You mean the one we pretty much lost if it was wasn't for the French coming to help us?

At least in the US, I can't see any sort of coup actually succeeding. After all, with hundreds of years of democratic tradition and plenty of training not to kill civilians, I can't see the military firing at US citizens beyond just a few bad apples. Even in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, army units have defected to avoid shooting their own citizens. And the US trained Egyptian and Tunisian militaries refused to even stop the overthrow of their government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

You do know that the crime rate is much lower today than 20 years ago? And lower than 30 years ago. THE GOVERMENT SUCKS AND CAN'T DO ITS JOB, SO WE NEED THE GUNS TO PROTECT OURSELF.

---

And what makes you think the "GOVERNMENT" is responsible for making the crime rate go down? Are you really that naieve? There are hundreds of stimuli that affect crime trends

I might also point out that as populations age and mature and progress, certain things become less illegal over time, which affects recording crime. 20 years ago, stealing anything with a value over $50 was considered GRAND LARCENY a felony in most US States. Now it's anywhere from $500 to $1000 to qualify for that....... Based on a change of values, there are fewer felonious thefts today than 20 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

And what makes you think the "GOVERNMENT" is responsible for making the crime rate go down? Are you really that naieve? There are hundreds of stimuli that affect crime trends

I might also point out that as populations age and mature and progress, certain things become less illegal over time, which affects recording crime. 20 years ago, stealing anything with a value over $50 was considered GRAND LARCENY a felony in most US States. Now it's anywhere from $500 to $1000 to qualify for that....... Based on a change of values, there are fewer felonious thefts today than 20 years ago.

---

The government is a factor, but I can agree on that's it's probably not the main driver in this case.

Main thing was that there's no (or very poor) correlation between "guns are needed, since the goverment fails to protect", gun ownership and crime.

Theft is completely irrelevant to gun ownership. Muggery and robbery is in some form, although I'm not sure how it's treated (theft or assult) in the data.

Of course government is one of many factors in lower crime, but I might also point out that gun ownership is also a factor. That being said, there is plenty to correlate that people want guns because their government fails to protect. I am not making a statement of right or wrong, I am telling you how people feel. One thing that trips me up about the gun-control crowd from countires that have effectively had strict gun controls for decades, is that their arguments fail to consider the pure saturation of guns in this nation. We can argue and go round and round endlessly about what came first the chicken or the egg, but the simple fact is that there are plenty of bad people in this country who have guns, gun control would not convonce them to turn in their guns as they are crooks already, and citizens lacking guns will cause a field day for the criminals with guns. You, Ironside, may think it worthwhile to partake in such a social experiment for the greater, long term good, and that is probably where we will never see eye to eye.

Washington DC is one of the worst places in the nation. Chicagos gun ban has been fail. Meanwhile, states that enact conceal-carry laws see an almost immediate drop in victim-type crimes, while counties in adjacent states that dont have conceal-carry have an immediate increase in victim-crime, because the professional criminals are migrating targets.

Guns are not the solution, and neither is banning them wholesale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You mean the one we pretty much lost if it was wasn't for the French coming to help us?

---

Yes, state sponsorship is key to the success of an insurgency.

I don't see why gun control automatically means a dictatorship. There are plenty of democratic countries out there that have gun control and no gun related crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

I don't see why gun control automatically means a dictatorship.

---

Who said it does?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

I don't see why gun control automatically means a dictatorship. There are plenty of democratic countries out there that have gun control and no gun related crime.

---

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.

---

According to Wikipedia -

0.1 Gun Death per 100,000 population in the United Kingdom
3.5 Gun Death per 100,000 population in the United States

That's a pretty big difference...

Quote:

---

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.

---

yeah and britains violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than the US' and the murder rate has been climbing since 1997 when the total handgun ban was enacted. American murder rates are the lowest in 20 years. i would hope a country which bans guns would have lower gun murders what a completely worthless statistic and point to demonstrate.

Yet the argument present in the thread from some posters was that: "Gun control doesn't work". Since there is a massive statistical difference, I would argue it does.

Not a worthless statistic or point to demonstrate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

yeah and britains violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than the US' and the murder rate has been climbing since 1997 when the total handgun ban was enacted. American murder rates are the lowest in 20 years. i would hope a country which bans guns would have lower gun murders what a completely worthless statistic and point to demonstrate.

---

Britain has huge ghettoised immigrant populations and an underclass where no one has worked in three generations and most new parents are in their mid to late teens. We banned guns over here because of our social problems, banning guns did not create said problems or the violence that results from them.

But the question for the last two posters is were guns saturated in that country inside and out? You cannot issue blanket statements on hgow gun control works without also addressing the amount of guns in the country when the ban is enacted.

Meanwhile, a large proportion of violent crime in the US involves a gun. If guns were banned, a large proportion of violent crime would still involve guns. How long would it take for that number to decrease significantly without making potential victims sitting ducks? Furthermore, prohibition of an item creates a blackmarket, and we can't even secure our borders. Crooks would still get guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Yet the argument present in the thread from some posters was that: "Gun control doesn't work". Since there is a massive statistical difference, I would argue it does.

Not a worthless statistic or point to demonstrate.

---

And yet, the logic behind it is based on fallacy. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.

---

There are plenty in Europe and Asia that have no gun crimes. Note that guns make it easier to hurt a person. Having no guns would make that crime more unlikely to happen. I'll name a few countries of a lot of countries that have no gun crime: UK, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, etc. I for one know for certain that the civilians in UK, Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Cambodia don't own guns and there is no gun crime there. I also know for certain that the murder rate in those countries are much much lower than the US.

i love people who cannot grasp the concept of zero gun crime and LESS gun crime......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Who said it does?

---

Someone said that we have the right to bear arms because the first US government wanted the civilians to be able to rebel in case the government becomes bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

yeah and britains violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than the US' and the murder rate has been climbing since 1997 when the total handgun ban was enacted. American murder rates are the lowest in 20 years. i would hope a country which bans guns would have lower gun murders what a completely worthless statistic and point to demonstrate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

i love people who cannot grasp the concept of zero gun crime and LESS gun crime......

---

I doubt you traveled much.

I have lived in NYC. My dad was robbed at gunpoint in the elevator of the building that we lived in. We moved out of NYC soon after our room got buglarized a few weeks later. We moved to a safer neighborhood in New Jersey. I watched news of at least one gun related crime in NYC each day. A lot of it was gang related and you would've noticed this if you were around in NYC or LA at that time. This was long before Gulliani became mayor of NYC and long before gun control in NYC. Even when the crime rate went down during the late 90s and the early 00s, I know of a person in San Francisco who experienced a gun related crime at that time. Imagine how much more worse it was before gun control in the major cities. Before gun control, gun related crime was happening more often in NYC at least from what I saw. The thing is that this really isn't gun control. It's hard to stop the flow of every single gun in a country that has plenty of it. The results of gun control is very different with a country like the UK. The UK has much much less gun problems than the US does. It does have crime. Now imagine if criminals owned guns in the UK. It would get a lot worse because guns make it easy for anyone to hurt someone.

What's the point of owning a gun in the US? Are you going to carry it around everywhere you go? A lot of the gun related crimes in the US happened in areas where a normal person wouldn't or wasn't allowed to carry a gun. Would you carry a gun in school or in a summer camp in the USA? No because you'd probably have the cops come over and aim at you pretty soon. The fact is that even the US of A isn't a guns-for-everywhere-for-an-innocent-civilian country. There are a lot of places in the US where you'd rather not carry a gun, but crime can still happen there. The right to bear arms hasn't protected a lot of American citizens because most Americans wouldn't own a gun. It just made it easier for a criminal to own a gun. In countries like South Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc., it's close to impossible for a criminal to own a gun. I'd really say 100% impossible because I know from what a lot of people from there told me and I have traveled to those countries for a long time. I haven't heard of a gun related crime in those countries for over a decade. Believe me, it's possible not to have a gun related crime for that long. Did you know that Cambodia banned guns? Cambodian civilians were urged to give their guns away to the government. Crime went down significantly over there. I traveled there to Angkor Wat by scooter and I felt much safer there than when I did in LA, NYC and San Francisco. The only thing I was concerned about were the mines that probably weren't found yet, but even that wasn't much of a big concern because the city areas and the tourist areas of Cambodia are safe from mines now.

Try walking the streets of Detroit or Washington D.C. I don't mean cruising around the neighborhood, making a few stops at the safer regions and return back home quickly. Then try walking the streets of Singapore, Tokyo or Seoul. You'll notice a huge difference.

The previous post shows a lot about people's un-informed attitude, particularly the last paragraph.

"whats the point? are you carrying it everywhere?" Yes, I carry a gun everywhere I go. It does me no good leaving it in a closet. Yes, there are places we are not allowed to carry guns, like federal property and schools, and no, the "majority" of gun crimes in the US do not happen in places where you cannot carry a gun. Bot sities you mentioned, DC and Detroit, had gun bans. Oklahoma City does not, and the differences in the crime rate is staggering

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Yes, I carry a gun everywhere I go. Yes, there are places we are not allowed to carry guns, like federal property and schools, and no, the "majority" of gun crimes in the US do not happen in places where you cannot carry a gun.

---

I was saying that most Americans wouldn't own a gun. It's these whom the criminals would pick on. I wasn't talking only about you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Bot sities you mentioned, DC and Detroit, had gun bans. Oklahoma City does not, and the differences in the crime rate is staggering

---

Then explain to me why cities like Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, etc. have very low crime? These are huge cities. So I don't think the right to bear arms have to be a factor to decrease crime.

If you read my earlier post thoroughly, you'd see that I said that it's hard to stop the flow of guns getting into the US cities because there's a lot of them in the US already. That's why we still see gun related crime in these cities. The entire country needs to ban guns, which I admit would be hard to do in a country as large as the US is and which already has guns. I added that there's a big difference in NYC before and after the gun ban over there. NYC is much safer than it was when I was a kid. NYC is much larger in size and population than Oklahoma City so I don't think Oklahoma City is a good comparison. I'm sure you'd think differently if you traveled and experienced other places more.

Tbh, I find it sad that you need to carry a gun to feel safe. I want you to experience the feeling of being safe enough not to carry a gun everywhere you go. I like how I can trust any stranger even when that stranger knows that I don't have a gun. There are many places out there where you could experience this even in many parts of the US. I have experienced many of these places and I'm experiencing one right now. Surprise surprise, I never carried a gun everywhere I went even in the dangerous areas of certain US cites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

Someone said that we have the right to bear arms because the first US government wanted the civilians to be able to rebel in case the government becomes bad.




I doubt you traveled much.

I have lived in NYC. My dad was robbed at gunpoint in the elevator of the building that we lived in. We moved out of NYC soon after our room got buglarized a few weeks later. We moved to a safer neighborhood in New Jersey. I watched news of at least one gun related crime in NYC each day. A lot of it was gang related and you would've noticed this if you were around in NYC or LA at that time. This was long before Gulliani became mayor of NYC and long before gun control in NYC. Even when the crime rate went down during the late 90s and the early 00s, I know of a person in San Francisco who experienced a gun related crime at that time. Imagine how much more worse it was before gun control in the major cities. Before gun control, gun related crime was happening more often in NYC at least from what I saw. The thing is that this really isn't gun control. It's hard to stop the flow of every single gun in a country that has plenty of it. The results of gun control is very different with a country like the UK. The UK has much much less gun problems than the US does. It does have crime. Now imagine if criminals owned guns in the UK. It would get a lot worse because guns make it easy for anyone to hurt someone.

What's the point of owning a gun in the US? Are you going to carry it around everywhere you go? A lot of the gun related crimes in the US happened in areas where a normal person wouldn't or wasn't allowed to carry a gun. Would you carry a gun in school or in a summer camp in the USA? No because you'd probably have the cops come over and aim at you pretty soon. The fact is that even the US of A isn't a guns-for-everywhere-for-an-innocent-civilian country. There are a lot of places in the US where you'd rather not carry a gun, but crime can still happen there. The right to bear arms hasn't protected a lot of American citizens because most Americans wouldn't own a gun. It just made it easier for a criminal to own a gun. In countries like South Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc., it's close to impossible for a criminal to own a gun. I'd really say 100% impossible because I know from what a lot of people from there told me and I have traveled to those countries for a long time. I haven't heard of a gun related crime in those countries for over a decade. Believe me, it's possible not to have a gun related crime for that long. Did you know that Cambodia banned guns? Cambodian civilians were urged to give their guns away to the government. Crime went down significantly over there. I traveled there to Angkor Wat by scooter and I felt much safer there than when I did in LA, NYC and San Francisco. The only thing I was concerned about were the mines that probably weren't found yet, but even that wasn't much of a big concern because the city areas and the tourist areas of Cambodia are safe from mines now.

Try walking the streets of Detroit or Washington D.C. I don't mean cruising around the neighborhood, making a few stops at the safer regions and return back home quickly. Then try walking the streets of Singapore, Tokyo or Seoul. You'll notice a huge difference.

---

Don't assume things about people you have no idea about. I live in NYC for one, in the Bronx which im almost certain was likely worse than where you lived. I have lived in 5 different states throughout the US. I have been to Seoul, Singapore, and Tokyo (doesnt count was at the airport). Seoul's safety is more a product of the south korean culture than anything else, tokyo has some of the worst organized crime in the world and singapore is one of the strictest countries on earth. Oh and I spent quite a few of my teenage years 30 minutes away from DC.

also do you realize how much easier it is to control guns in places like japan, singapore, and the uk.......... simply because of geography alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka Khan

Someone said that we have the right to bear arms because the first US government wanted the civilians to be able to rebel in case the government becomes bad.

---

Yes, but who said 'gun control automatically means dictatorship'? No one did, apart from the straw man you seem to be arguing against.

By the way, as I alluded to earlier, using comparative circumstances of different countries as a basis for policy positions (in this case crime rates and gun control) involves a number of fallacies; so many, in fact, as to render such arguments virtually worthless. Heavy reliance on anecdote is even worse. What you need to provide are statistics from the same test group both before and after a gun ban has been implemented. Those stats still ignore a lot of headwind-type trends and other potentially misleading information, but are at least somewhat more demonstrative.

Here are some examples of the kind of information that, while not perfect, is a bit more useful.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...er/england.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...er/chicago.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...o_handguns.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...rjaeger/dc.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I live in NYC for one, in the Bronx which im almost certain was likely worse than where you lived.

---

You're the one who's making an assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I have lived in 5 different states throughout the US. I have been to Seoul, Singapore, and Tokyo (doesnt count was at the airport). Seoul's safety is more a product of the south korean culture than anything else, tokyo has some of the worst organized crime in the world and singapore is one of the strictest countries on earth. Oh and I spent quite a few of my teenage years 30 minutes away from DC.

---

If you lived in those countries then why did you posted these earlier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

name one country with no gun crimes or murder.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

yeah and britains violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than the US' and the murder rate has been climbing since 1997 when the total handgun ban was enacted. American murder rates are the lowest in 20 years. i would hope a country which bans guns would have lower gun murders what a completely worthless statistic and point to demonstrate.

---

This sounds like someone who never left your neighborhood. I'll repeat what I said to MRD: I find it sad that you need to carry a gun to feel safe. I want you to experience the feeling of being safe enough not to carry a gun everywhere you go. I like how I can trust any stranger even when that stranger knows that I don't have a gun. There are many places out there where you could experience this even in many parts of the US. I have experienced many of these places and I'm experiencing one right now. Surprise surprise, I never carried a gun everywhere I went even in the dangerous areas of certain US cites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

also do you realize how much easier it is to control guns in places like japan, singapore, and the uk.......... simply because of geography alone.

---

I did mention that it would be hard to ban guns in the US because of geography and the US is already saturated with guns. But I believe it's possible. There are countries like Cambodia that banned guns when a lot of the Cambodians owned these. A lot of the civilians in China (which is larger and more populous than the States) don't own guns. I felt pretty safe there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Yes, there are places we are not allowed to carry guns, like federal property and schools, and no, the "majority" of gun crimes in the US do not happen in places where you cannot carry a gun.

---

I mentioned schools because I saw some gun crime in US schools on the news. Even before Columbine, some schools had metal detectors at the entrance to ban guns because gun crimes were happening. Gun crime in a school is unheard of in places like the UK, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc.
I mentioned that a normal summer camp in the US bans guns because someone in this forum mentioned the need for everyone to own guns after that tragedy in Norway happened. I also saw someone claim that this wouldn't happen in the US because of the right to bear arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Yes, but who said 'gun control automatically means dictatorship'? No one did, apart from the straw man you seem to be arguing against.

By the way, as I alluded to earlier, using comparative circumstances of different countries as a basis for policy positions (in this case crime rates and gun control) involves a number of fallacies; so many, in fact, as to render such arguments virtually worthless. Heavy reliance on anecdote is even worse. What you need to provide are statistics from the same test group both before and after a gun ban has been implemented. Those stats still ignore a lot of headwind-type trends and other potentially misleading information, but are at least somewhat more demonstrative.

Here are some examples of the kind of information that, while not perfect, is a bit more useful.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...er/england.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...er/chicago.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...o_handguns.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...rjaeger/dc.jpg

---

Judging from those graphs, banning guns had no ill effect on the level of crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Yes, but who said 'gun control automatically means dictatorship'? No one did, apart from the straw man you seem to be arguing against.

---

Someone mentioned the Constitution having the right to bear arms so that the people can rebel against a dictatorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

By the way, as I alluded to earlier, using comparative circumstances of different countries as a basis for policy positions (in this case crime rates and gun control) involves a number of fallacies; so many, in fact, as to render such arguments virtually worthless. Heavy reliance on anecdote is even worse. What you need to provide are statistics from the same test group both before and after a gun ban has been implemented. Those stats still ignore a lot of headwind-type trends and other potentially misleading information, but are at least somewhat more demonstrative.

Here are some examples of the kind of information that, while not perfect, is a bit more useful.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...er/england.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...er/chicago.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...o_handguns.jpg

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...rjaeger/dc.jpg

---

You're only showing the US and the UK. The US still has guns outside those cities, which makes it difficult to ban guns in those cities. And the UK still has a lot less gun crime than in the US.

I'm saying what I experienced in the US and my different experience in other countries that clearly has zero gun worries.

I'm not picking a side just to annoy you. I was angry that a person I knew when I was a kid was shot. I was angry when I saw a girl run into the lobby and cry that her boyfriend was shot. (Both of these happened many years ago). It's ridiculous and a humiliation that innocent people go through this. In both of these cases, the crime wouldn't have happened if guns were harder for the criminals to obtain. Having been to safer areas, I don't think it's normal if there is a situation that makes the general population need to own guns. That situation just shows how dangerous a country is because of guns.

Offering anectodotal evidence of where you have been in the US, even bad neighborhoods, and felt safe w/o a gun has no bearing on the argument at hand, though. Get back to me when you have ventured into East St Louis or the rural meth belt. I might also point out that the only time I have been the victim of a potential deadly violent crime happened to be the one time I was unarmed because the place I was coming from did not allow personal firearms. Kind of funny, when you think about it.

I agree that it's sad I need a gun to feel safe. That is not my fault. It's also not going to change anytime soon. I don't make the world, I just live in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

Someone mentioned the Constitution having the right to bear arms so that the people can rebel against a dictatorship.

---

Yes, that does not equate to 'gun control means dictatorship'. The idea is not that taking away guns automatically leads to dictatorship (as your straw man would suggest), but that if at some point in the future the government does become authoritarian, the citizenry will have no means to resist.

Quote:

---

You're only showing the US and the UK. The US still has guns outside those cities, which makes it difficult to ban guns in those cities. And the UK still has a lot less gun crime than in the US.

---

That's the point. The US and UK have historically had different violent crime rates long before gun bans came into existence, thus comparisons aren't worth much. Claims that x country has 'zero' gun worries are not evidence of the success or failure of gun control efforts. Remember, correlation does not imply causation. If you're willing to look beyond such poorly thought out comparisons and really dig into the data, you'll be surprised at how little an impact gun control efforts seem to have had on generalized crime trends of various places around the world.

Quote:

---

I'm saying what I experienced in the US and my different experience in other countries that clearly has zero gun worries.

I'm not picking a side just to annoy you. I was angry that a person I knew when I was a kid was shot. I was angry when I saw a girl run into the lobby and cry that her boyfriend was shot. (Both of these happened many years ago). It's ridiculous and a humiliation that innocent people go through this. In both of these cases, the crime wouldn't have happened if guns were harder for the criminals to obtain. Having been to safer areas, I don't think it's normal if there is a situation that makes the general population need to own guns. That situation just shows how dangerous a country is because of guns.

---

Anecdote is just as worthless as false comparisons. You know, I feel really safe in the US and never feel the need to carry a gun for personal protection. That and a dollar will buy me something off the dollar menu at McDonalds. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

I'm not picking a side just to annoy you. I was angry that a person I knew when I was a kid was shot. I was angry when I saw a girl run into the lobby and cry that her boyfriend was shot. (Both of these happened many years ago). It's ridiculous and a humiliation that innocent people go through this. In both of these cases, the crime wouldn't have happened if guns were harder for the criminals to obtain. Having been to safer areas, I don't think it's normal if there is a situation that makes the general population need to own guns. That situation just shows how dangerous a country is because of guns.

---

I heard a story on the radio once about a woman whose ex-husband had been in the KKK. She got introduced to everyone in the local organization. After they broke up she volunteered for the police, wearing a wire to events and gatherings and such. Eventually they got caught on and she started getting threatening phone calls "we're going to kill your dogs, we're going to kill you"...when they showed up at her house one night with crowbars or something she met them on the porch with a shotgun and they scrammed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

There are plenty in Europe and Asia that have no gun crimes. Note that guns make it easier to hurt a person. Having no guns would make that crime more unlikely to happen. I'll name a few countries of a lot of countries that have no gun crime: UK, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, etc. I for one know for certain that the civilians in UK, Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Cambodia don't own guns and there is no gun crime there. I also know for certain that the murder rate in those countries are much much lower than the US.

---

Data taken from this 2002 WHO report, listing numbers for the most recent data-year available between 1990 and 2000.

Gun-related homicides

UK: 45 (1999)
Japan: 22 (1997)
South Korea: 19 (1997)
Singapore: 0 (1998)
Taiwan: no data
Cambodia: no data
Vietnam: no data
China: 3 (1996, data only for Hong Kong)

45 ≠ zero
22 ≠ zero
19 ≠ zero
3 ≠ zero

I'm not sure whether those countries with no data were excluded because there was no firearm homicide or because they chose not to report their data to the WHO. Considering there was data for Hong Kong, but not for the rest of China, I wouldn't be surprised if at least some cases were due to a lack of transparency. Also, these figures cover only homicides, not other gun crime. Singapore had 5 gun-related suicides in that year, if you include those as instances of gun crime, and I have no idea what the figures might be for armed robbery or any other form of gun crime. As Centurion pointed out, there is a difference between zero gun crime and less gun crime. Try to be accurate in the claims you make. If you want to make a case that many countries have lower gun crime rates than the U.S., you're on firm ground. If you claim that countries like Japan, South Korea, and the UK have zero gun crime, you're simply wrong.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

45 ≠ zero
22 ≠ zero
19 ≠ zero
3 ≠ zero

...If you want to make a case that many countries have lower gun crime rates than the U.S., you're on firm ground. If you claim that countries like Japan, South Korea, and the UK have zero gun crime, you're simply wrong.

---

That is being rather pedantic though, he is evidently meaning relative to the numbers in the United States.

Using your own source:
United States of America (1998) 11802

Now let's compare it to the quoted, lets take the highest one.
UK: 45 (1999)

11802 versus 45.

Why "zero" is incorrect, he is simply using the literary device to insinuate that it is effectively 'nothing'/'zero' in comparison to the United States to make forth his point and considering the difference, I feel there should be some fair usage. It isn't as if the United States number was 68, then that would be raising eyebrows at his use of that particular literary device.

Well, I'm feeling rather like a pedant tonight, and I was getting frustrated by Centurion and Shaka_Khan talking past each other on this point. As I said, lower gun crime? Sure. Obscenely lower? Why not. Zero? False.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

That is being rather pedantic though, he is evidently meaning relative to the numbers in the United States.

Using your own source:
United States of America (1998) 11802

Now let's compare it to the quoted, lets take the highest one.
UK: 45 (1999)

11802 versus 45.

Why "zero" is incorrect, he is simply using the literary device to insinuate that it is effectively 'nothing'/'zero' in comparison to the United States to make forth his point and considering the difference, I feel there should be some fair usage. It isn't as if the United States number was 68, then that would be raising eyebrows at his use of that particular literary device.

---

If one compares those numbers to population size, they might as well both be 'zero' if we're using the term figuratively. The dirty little secret that those quoting stats from other countries never mention is that the chance of getting into a violent crime in the US involving a gun may be statistically higher than in the UK or the Asian nations mentioned, but it is still incredibily small. The anecdote expressed in this thread seems to be more of a function of a fearful imagination than reality. Is anyone really deathly afraid to ride a scooter in San Francisco for fear of getting shot? :dizzy2:

The question is: Do we want to remove a fundamental freedom many Americans cherish and enjoy to to move the number from e-5 to e-7? (And that assumes that gun control does reduce gun crime, which has not at all been established.)

its not my fault if people simply want to ignore what i say and twist it to their own devices. I said zero, when I say zero i imply a value of 0 or a value of nothing if you prefer. I reiterated it multiple times.

when I say zero I really mean 12.

I like how we have 22,000 gun laws on the books yet people want to talk about how gun control works.

If we enforced current laws and closed that stupid gun show loophole it would be a done deal. IMO, the people who campaign to keep the gun show loophole open are just as bad as the liars on the anti-gun side

I'm also curious from you who think that guns vanishing is the magic solution:

If we take guns out of the picture, the murder rate per capita in the US still exceeds that of, say Japan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

If we take guns out of the picture, the murder rate per capita in the US still exceeds that of, say Japan.

---

I suspect Japan is rather a low crime country. I've heard it said that the US and the UK have quite comparable crime rates, except for the "obscenely lower" gun crime in the UK.

Black males ages 16-24 also commit the majority of violent crimes in the US. We should consider a ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Black males ages 16-24 also commit the majority of violent crimes in the US. We should consider a ban.

---

:laugh4:

That does bring up a good point, though. A significant proportion of those deaths are criminal on criminal and criminal on police homicides, which should be factored out if we're discussing the relative danger to the 'average' citizen.

One trick the Brady lobby used in the 80s and early 90s, before the internet was widely available and people could find federal statistics on their own, was to include people up to the age of 24 as "youths" i.e. "children" and not factor out criminal-on-criminal activity, thus coming up with stats to pull the heartstrings like " a child is shot every 10 minutes in the USA." It also included suicides.

Guns = more gun crime is a no brainer. But based on the reactions of the general public, I would say the vast majority of Americans see it as a Few ruining it for Everyone Else and they won't be baited by bogus stats. The anti-gun lobby would have people believe that in order for a gun top be an effective deterrent/use against crime, that there has to be a gunshot, a bullet and blood, when in fact a guy walking into his backyard with a shotgun and scaring away a pack of burglars does not go into any sort of database. You see these stoeis in the news all the time, yet they aren't included in the "facts." There's a reason that Appalachia has one of the lowest home invasion rates in the nation, despite being in the meth belt ..............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

There's a reason that Appalachia has one of the lowest home invasion rates in the nation, despite being in the meth belt ..............

---

... Though you have to admit that might partially be explained by lack of inhabited buildings and richer pickings elsewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

... Though you have to admit that might partially be explained by lack of inhabited buildings and richer pickings elsewhere?

---

..and a certain....let's call it proclivity not to report a possible break in to the police....not with that science project going on in the back room.

none of you are from appalachia or have ever been there.

I've had some cases in Appalachia. They are harder to solve because of lack of dental records and the the DNA being the same.

Good point about the disparity in population clusters, however the home invasion distribution should stay relatively the same per capita, which it is not. It is lower.

While I get the meth lab joke, to sya that people don't call the cops because they are up to something illegal is factually incorrect. In fact, if it were correct, it would hurt the anti-gun angle because it is suggesting that the people using guns are people who are multi-faceted criminals, which enfordces the pro-gun argument that the people who obtain and use guns legally are not the ones at fualt: it's the criminals.

A lot of people don't call the police for a lot of reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

none of you are from appalachia or have ever been there.

---

true..but I didn´t want to mention that because it might sound like I was bragging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Guns = more gun crime is a no brainer.

---

There is actually evidence that supports the notion that the presence of a gun (even an inactive hunting rifle hung upon the wall) significantly increases levels of aggression, due to it being recognised as a "danger/aggression" mental cue.