Printable View
There are over 300 million firearms in this country. There are almost enough firearms in this country to give almost every single person a gun in this country. Yet, compared to other times in our history, we aren't in a violent time.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Lets escape the fact that those other civilized Western nations are a lot more homogeneous and have different histories (including gun crimes). It is an apple and oranges comparison.
Yet over the approximately the last two decades the number of U.S. households with a gun is down from 50% to 30%. More guns, but in the hands of fewer people. Collectors and stockpilers.Quote:
There are almost enough firearms in this country to give almost every single person a gun in this country.
Are you forgetting 20 first and second graders and 6 adults were killed in a school shooting just this year? Are you forgetting Gabrielle Giffords? The children in the article I linked above? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us...&smid=pl-share )How many people have to be severely injured, disabled or die of gunshot wounds before you call it a violent time?Quote:
we aren't in a violent time.
There is a big difference between the U.S. and other civilized Western nations. They don't have an NRA (and organization of Nuts, Racists and Assholes).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=fJFuZpYWr-k
From the mid-80s to the mid-90s, United States averaged over 20,000 murders a year. The peak year was in 1991 with 24,700 murders. In 2012, there were 14,827 murders in the United States. Our murder rate for 2012 was the lowest since 1962. What was going on in the 80s and 90s? The illegal drug trade was in full force. I don't think the drop in legal (keep word) ownership affected our homicide number to the point of causing a massive drop in numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Even countries that have strict gun control experience homicides. For example, the UK:
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...cal-crime-data
If you notice, the UK historically had low homicide numbers even before that country introduced strict gun control.
And household gun ownership was at 50% compared to today's 30%.Quote:
What was going on in the 80s and 90s? The illegal drug trade was in full force.
It would be inconvenient for you to think that.Quote:
I don't think the drop in legal (keep word) ownership affected our homicide number to the point of causing a massive drop in numbers.
Nevertheless, you can't say we in the U.S. don't live in violent times in the same year 20 first and second graders are gunned down and the NRA doesn't blink an eye. Homicide are down over the past couple of decades (but we still have ten times as many homicides as comparable nations). Firearm accidents and suicides are up. A gun in your home (or the home of relative or the home of your child's friend) increases the probability that someone in your family will die of a gunshot wound.
Your view on the UK is very simplistic. There is general public consensus against ownership of handguns, which is enforced under strict legislation. Guns for sport are more readily accepted, but are controlled by a strict licensing regime. This regime was strengthened after the Dunblane Massacre (A former boy-scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, shot dead 16 young children and their teacher at Dunblane Primary School before turning the gun on himself). Strangely we seem to take notice of mass killings sprees in the UK!Quote:
Originally Posted by notdrunk
The combined impact and subsequent public outcry motivated the Conservative government at the time to amend the existing legislation on gun ownership. The Firearms Amendment of 1997 completely banned handguns from private ownership.
Despite the handguns ban imposed under the 1997 Firearms Amendment, research carried out following the implementation of the Act saw a 40 per cent increase in the number of gun crime incidents in the UK.
While the number of homicides from gun crime remained largely static for over a decade, 2007 proved a decisive year for this issue. A wave of gang related incidents were committed by teenagers against other teenagers, with some high profile cases ending in fatalities. London, Manchester and Nottingham were most notably affected.
In August 2007, these attacks culminated in the murder of an 11-year-old Liverpool schoolboy, Rhys Jones, hit whilst playing football outside his local pub. Following a lengthy police investigation and a trial lasting over two months, an 18 year old youth, Sean Mercer, a member of the 'Croxteth crew' gang, was convicted in December 2008 of the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The then prime minister, Gordon Brown, came under constant pressure to resolve the issues driving these murders. Following mass killings in Cumbria in June, 2010, the Home Secretary Theresa May confirmed that two weapons had been recovered by police, a shotgun and a .22 rifle, and that the gunman, Derrick Bird, had held a shotgun licence since 1995 and a firearms licence (for the .22 rifle) since 2007.
Ms May pledged that when the police had completed their investigations, the Government would lead a debate on the country's gun laws, engaging with "all interested parties" and allowing MPs to contribute to the debate.
Firearms offences are geographically concentrated in London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.
At the same time young people are disproportionately the victims of gun crime: 15 to 29-year-olds comprise 20 per cent of the population but were victims in 45 per cent of firearms offences in 2010/11.
Concerns also continued to increase about the use of illegal firearms by street gangs and organised criminals. In February 2012, the Home Secretary launched a consultation on strengthening the law in this area, in particular whether the penalty should be increased for illegal importation of firearms and also whether there was a need for a new offence of possession of illegal firearms with intent to supply.
The consultation was set to run for 12 weeks and sought the views of the public, the police, the CPS, victims groups, the judiciary, and voluntary organisations.
In its response to the consultation published in October 2012, the Government stated that it was clear there was “strong support for taking a tougher stance on control of prohibited firearms.”
It had been decided, therefore, to increase the maximum penalty for illegal importation of firearms to life imprisonment and to create a new offence of 'possession with intent to supply' The changes would be implemented as soon as a legislative opportunity arose.
In summary – the rare mass killings are carried out loneers with legally held shotguns and other sporting rifles. Killings using handguns are among young gangs in a limited number of inner cities. There is some pressure from a very small minority that restrictions on handguns should be relaxed.
I highly doubt it's heredity. Why is it that so many of these NRA supporters are not only brain-dead when it comes to policy but brain-dead when it comes to American history too? The treatment of African-Americans in this country hasn't exactly been standard has it?Quote:
Originally Posted by notdrunk
But now it's the minorities who through some pre-disposition to violence are responsible for taking your guns away? What about Bloomberg and his campaign for gun control? He's a Jew you know. Why don't you throw a little blame his way? Clearly Mexican-Americans must be partly to blame for this campaign to take your guns away (I haven't thought of a reason yet but I'm sure we can invent one). And women? You know they're slightly more than half the population now.
And how many times have we heard this comment about homogeneous countries being less violent? I'm sure he's not talking about countries where everyone dresses the same way, but rather racially homogenous countries. I'm sorry to tell you that you live in a pluralistic country. We have people from many backgrounds practicing many different religions. It doesn't account for the gun violence. A lot of the violence can be attributed to people without much brains or ability owning firearms. That's you.
Unable to understand precedent from Supreme Court cases on their favorite civil right, unable to read the dates on documents they post, but steadfast in their dislike of people different from them. Pathetic.
Hilarious! Apples and oranges!!! How fruity. Reminds me of that scene in the movie Lone Star (IMDB 7.5) where the bartender says he just doesn't like his cinnamon and sugar in the same jar.Quote:
Originally Posted by notdrunk
"If you mixed your drinks as badly as you mix your metaphors you'd be out of business"
"Hey I'm as liberal as the next guy"
"If the next guy's a redneck"
Yes, I am stating that. It is hard to grasp the realization that the 1980s and 1990s were a lot violent compared to now. A couple of incidents don't decide the year. But, it is alright to knee-jerk to an incident because it is shocking. The NRA did blink an eye but their solution wasn't acceptable to you (apparently).Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Nope. My point was stop comparing the United States to other countries. Even before the introduction of strict gun control, murders caused by firearms was extremely low compared to the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
Oh please. Thanks for injecting emotion and innuendo! So, I will just dance..:dancing:Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
And yet now if very violent. Why else to you think you need a gun to protect yourself? Why else are you stockpiling? Oh, that's right, patriot...for the coming revolution!Quote:
It is hard to grasp the realization that the 1980s and 1990s were a lot violent compared to now.
Twenty first and second graders lying dead in pools of their own blood I should think counts as more than a couple of incidents. There are people shot, injured, permanently maimed or killed by gunfire in the U.S. every day.Quote:
A couple of incidents don't decide the year.
Not to mention the children who die from firearm accidents (which I notice you persistently and deliberately not mentioned... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us...&smid=pl-share .
That's not a point, you're just asking us wear blinders. Don't look across the Atlantic where things are better. We're oranges and they're apples.Quote:
My point was stop comparing the United States to other countries.
We're just people on both sides of the pond. Arizona isn't more diverse London, nor Connecticut more diverse Paris. The only difference is we have a problem with guns (because the NRA and their zombies cockblock all attempts to regulate them) and they don't.