Gun Control

You've read the title. Go.

Gun control is impossible, unless you can do it globally. People are gonna find ways to get them one way or another. Even if guns are banned globally, the results will be no different than if they weren't, people are still gonna kill each other [just this time they can't use a gun, and guns won't be used against them (neutral effect)].

Our bodies are weak and fragile, and removing primitive ballistic weapons doesn't make it harder to break one.

List of countries by firearm-related death rate

This is simply one of the first charts I found when I googled this subject and it reiterates what I already understood. That YES, virtually banning all firearms DOES dramatically decrease firearm related injury, violence, and crime. To compare Japan that has effectively banned firearms to the United States that assures it as a constitutional right has nearly 510 times the amount of firearm related injury, violence, and crime. That is about a 99% reduction...

Although I am not a huge fan of people keeping guns, I have no problem with it politically as long as they are used responsibly. Proof of that is Switzerland is one of the worlds safest countries (in terms of crimes) despite the fact it has one of the highest guns per capita

SkepticalDragon wrote:List of countries by firearm-related death rate

This is simply one of the first charts I found when I googled this subject and it reiterates what I already understood. That YES, virtually banning all firearms DOES dramatically decrease firearm related injury, violence, and crime. To compare Japan that has effectively banned firearms to the United States that assures it as a constitutional right has nearly 510 times the amount of firearm related injury, violence, and crime. That is about a 99% reduction...

But those cases are fire arm related, lol. Its no surprise that taking fire arms away lowers crimes involving them. The questions is that if it lowers ALL crime.

Belsfir wrote: (1.) Gun control is impossible, unless you can do it globally. (2.) People are gonna find ways to get them one way or another. (3.) Even if guns are banned globally, the results will be no different than if they weren't, (4.) people are still gonna kill each other [just this time they can't use a gun, and guns won't be used against them (neutral effect)].

Our bodies are weak and fragile, and removing primitive ballistic weapons doesn't make it harder to break one.

SkepticalDragon wrote:List of countries by firearm-related death rate

This is simply one of the first charts I found when I googled this subject and it reiterates what I already understood. That YES, virtually banning all firearms DOES dramatically decrease firearm related injury, violence, and crime. To compare Japan that has effectively banned firearms to the United States that assures it as a constitutional right has nearly 510 times the amount of firearm related injury, violence, and crime. That is about a 99% reduction...

Belsfir wrote:But those cases are fire arm related, lol. Its no surprise that taking fire arms away lowers crimes involving them. The questions is that if it lowers ALL crime.

The first three points that you made, as best I can interpret them, seems to be brought into question by this information... assuming it is accurate. Such a ban does not have to be global to be effective. When an effective firearm ban is in place it is apparently difficult to acquire firearms. Also it seems that it does make a significant reduction in injury and crimes involving firearms, so there is a difference.

However your fourth point coincides with your objection now, that effectively banning guns will not reduce overall crime... which is argumentative. Japan has a lower overall crime rate when compared to the United States. In fact many European nations that have effectively banned firearms also has a lower overall crime rate when compared to the United States. However I am willing to concede that the causes and effects of crime is rather complex... and my understanding of criminology is somewhat limited... so for the time being I will admit that your fourth point and subsequent objection may be valid... in as much as the affects of a virtual ban on firearms on overall crime seems to be inconclusive for the moment.

However can you give an example of an effective ban on firearms NOT reducing overall crime rates?

Not sure if this is valid but
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

Myth 10 is interesting

I think it's somewhat irrelevant whether it lowers the crime rate overall. It's still a lot harder to kill people with a knife than it is with a gun. While it could be true that criminals would simply replace the gun with a knife or some other substitute, it would not be nearly as effective or easy to commit killing on a larger scale like the shooting sprees we've witnessed recently in America. So while the crime rate could potentially be the same, I would suspect that the death toll would certainly be lower either way.

MiniSiets wrote:I think it's somewhat irrelevant whether it lowers the crime rate overall. It's still a lot harder to kill people with a knife than it is with a gun. While it could be true that criminals would simply replace the gun with a knife or some other substitute, it would not be nearly as effective or easy to commit killing on a larger scale like the shooting sprees we've witnessed recently in America. So while the crime rate could potentially be the same, I would suspect that the death toll would certainly be lower either way.

Guns aren't even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

9/11 hijackers used plastic knives and box cutters to take control of the planes. Not a gun was present in that disaster.

Also, on the shooting sprees: The Sandy Hook killer stole his guns, and he did not use an automatic weapon. So if there was an assault weapons ban in place before this all happened, he would of been able to acquire the same weapon he used to murder.

Btw: Here are some incidents where a gun has stopped a crime

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/17/Security-guard-stops-theater-shooting

http://www.naturalnews.com/038404_massacres_gun_owners_defense.html


Furthermore, according to This, cops, soldiers, etc. Would not enforce gun confiscation orders.



However! The very reason why we are even able to bear arms is for the formation of a militia.

Oi! I Found my coup de grace for this argument....

A Harvard study stating that gun control is counterproductive, it shows that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

Belsfir wrote:Oi! I Found my coup de grace for this argument....

A Harvard study stating that gun control is counterproductive, it shows that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Nice that some one admits that. Most people on this subject say "My research proves that gun control is the right way to go" or the opposite. But at least this admits that it only claims that gun control won't help (maybe even makes things worse) rather than claiming that gun ownership makes everything better.

Belsfir wrote:

MiniSiets wrote:I think it's somewhat irrelevant whether it lowers the crime rate overall. It's still a lot harder to kill people with a knife than it is with a gun. While it could be true that criminals would simply replace the gun with a knife or some other substitute, it would not be nearly as effective or easy to commit killing on a larger scale like the shooting sprees we've witnessed recently in America. So while the crime rate could potentially be the same, I would suspect that the death toll would certainly be lower either way.

Guns aren't even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

9/11 hijackers used plastic knives and box cutters to take control of the planes. Not a gun was present in that disaster.

Also, on the shooting sprees: The Sandy Hook killer stole his guns, and he did not use an automatic weapon. So if there was an assault weapons ban in place before this all happened, he would of been able to acquire the same weapon he used to murder.

Btw: Here are some incidents where a gun has stopped a crime

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/17/Security-guard-stops-theater-shooting

Furthermore, according to This, cops, soldiers, etc. Would not enforce gun confiscation orders.

However! The very reason why we are even able to bear arms is for the formation of a militia.

Cherry picking stories of where a firearm has prevented a crime may mislead or misrepresent their effectiveness at preventing crime, there are some studies that indicate that using a firearm in such circumstances has a higher likelihood of being misused or even used against you.

The September 11th hijackers didn't use firearms because they couldn't of smuggled it past security and the risk of discharging those firearms inside the plane cabin was counterproductive to what they wanted. School shootings are somewhat rare, despite the impression that Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting might have given us... but yes a disproportionately larger percentage of firearms obtained for criminal purposes are given/borrowed/taken from family/friends:But by statistics firearms (namely pistols) overshadow all other weapons used in violent offenses. Granted that other forms of firearms when separated from pistols tends to be same or even less than other weapons used...

Belsfir wrote:Oi! I Found my coup de grace for this argument....

A Harvard study stating that gun control is counterproductive, it shows that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

This is another example of cherry picking, regretfully... when comparing statistics on overall crimes rates (even simply intentional homicide rates) it becomes more complicated... for example what sort of laws are in place and is there effective implementation of those laws? There is also many factors other than firearms that should be considered to contribute to crime rates of any kind as I mentioned previously.

For example, this report as complied by UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) suggests that there is a correlation between gun ownership per captia and increased overall homicide rates, however as you may notice Mexico in this selection despite a lower gun ownership per captia has a much higher homicide rate... but do you think this is related to the unofficial crime civil war in Mexico? Which is why I admit in regards to its affect on overall crime it is somewhat inconclusive, since comparing Mexico to the United States would NOT be a fair comparison, not by a long shot (pardon the pun)... in fact I am a bit hesitant to compare crime rates between Japan and the United States for the same reason...

But if you skim through this chart List of countries by intentional homicide rate, List of countries by firearm-related death rate, and Number of guns per capita by country what I see at a glance is countries that have effective restrictions on firearms tends to have significantly lower rates of crime for both homicides with or without firearms. But again... there are so many factors to consider. But what was originally objected to wasn't the effect of "gun control" on overall crime but if more guns necessarily means more gun related crimes... and what a shocker the answer is yes... more guns means more gun related crimes. Thank you UNODC for telling us what we already should of known.



Besides no one within the official sphere of United States government is arguing for a ban on firearms... what is being asked for is effective laws and policies to drive down crime rates (most of all crimes involving firearms). But it seems that within the United States there is a malformed gun culture that envisions itself as the last bastion of freeborn individuals that must defend itself from the tyrannical legal system and lawlessness... and most of all fight against it's government disarming them so that (insert something horrible here) can rise again!!!

As a liberal libertarian I actually support the right of people to have firearms... but I see it as like many other rights such as education... the government must provide everyone with reasonable access to time, place, and manner. There is plenty of room for reform of policy, law, and even treaty that can enhance American rights to firearms while helping to drive down crime rates.

SkepticalDragon wrote:

Belsfir wrote:

MiniSiets wrote:I think it's somewhat irrelevant whether it lowers the crime rate overall. It's still a lot harder to kill people with a knife than it is with a gun. While it could be true that criminals would simply replace the gun with a knife or some other substitute, it would not be nearly as effective or easy to commit killing on a larger scale like the shooting sprees we've witnessed recently in America. So while the crime rate could potentially be the same, I would suspect that the death toll would certainly be lower either way.

Guns aren't even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

9/11 hijackers used plastic knives and box cutters to take control of the planes. Not a gun was present in that disaster.

Also, on the shooting sprees: The Sandy Hook killer stole his guns, and he did not use an automatic weapon. So if there was an assault weapons ban in place before this all happened, he would of been able to acquire the same weapon he used to murder.

Btw: Here are some incidents where a gun has stopped a crime

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/17/Security-guard-stops-theater-shooting

Furthermore, according to This, cops, soldiers, etc. Would not enforce gun confiscation orders.

However! The very reason why we are even able to bear arms is for the formation of a militia.

Cherry picking stories of where a firearm has prevented a crime may mislead or misrepresent their effectiveness at preventing crime, there are some studies that indicate that using a firearm in such circumstances has a higher likelihood of being misused or even used against you.

The September 11th hijackers didn't use firearms because they couldn't of smuggled it past security and the risk of discharging those firearms inside the plane cabin was counterproductive to what they wanted. School shootings are somewhat rare, despite the impression that Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting might have given us... but yes a disproportionately larger percentage of firearms obtained for criminal purposes are given/borrowed/taken from family/friends:

Spoiler:

But by statistics firearms (namely pistols) overshadow all other weapons used in violent offenses. Granted that other forms of firearms when separated from pistols tends to be same or even less than other weapons used...

Spoiler:

Belsfir wrote:Oi! I Found my coup de grace for this argument....

A Harvard study stating that gun control is counterproductive, it shows that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

This is another example of cherry picking, regretfully... when comparing statistics on overall crimes rates (even simply intentional homicide rates) it becomes more complicated... for example what sort of laws are in place and is there effective implementation of those laws? There is also many factors other than firearms that should be considered to contribute to crime rates of any kind as I mentioned previously.

For example, this report as complied by UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) suggests that there is a correlation between gun ownership per captia and increased overall homicide rates, however as you may notice Mexico in this selection despite a lower gun ownership per captia has a much higher homicide rate... but do you think this is related to the unofficial crime civil war in Mexico? Which is why I admit in regards to its affect on overall crime it is somewhat inconclusive, since comparing Mexico to the United States would NOT be a fair comparison, not by a long shot (pardon the pun)... in fact I am a bit hesitant to compare crime rates between Japan and the United States for the same reason...

But if you skim through this chart List of countries by intentional homicide rate, List of countries by firearm-related death rate, and Number of guns per capita by country what I see at a glance is countries that have effective restrictions on firearms tends to have significantly lower rates of crime for both homicides with or without firearms. But again... there are so many factors to consider. But what was originally objected to wasn't the effect of "gun control" on overall crime but if more guns necessarily means more gun related crimes... and what a shocker the answer is yes... more guns means more gun related crimes. Thank you UNODC for telling us what we already should of known.



Besides no one within the official sphere of United States government is arguing for a ban on firearms... what is being asked for is effective laws and policies to drive down crime rates (most of all crimes involving firearms). But it seems that within the United States there is a malformed gun culture that envisions itself as the last bastion of freeborn individuals that must defend itself from the tyrannical legal system and lawlessness... and most of all fight against it's government disarming them so that (insert something horrible here) can rise again!!!

As a liberal libertarian I actually support the right of people to have firearms... but I see it as like many other rights such as education... the government must provide everyone with reasonable access to time, place, and manner. There is plenty of room for reform of policy, law, and even treaty that can enhance American rights to firearms while helping to drive down crime rates.

Calling my materials as "cherry picked" is rather a poor way to refute them. I have my materials from credible sources, while you have not cited the sources of your own materials posted (other than that from the UNODC). Upon examining the links, they came from Wikipedia (which, mind you, is not an acceptable source for any research).

If you think that "cherry picking" is going on here, then it is more true for your own argument than mine.

[Esp with the fact that the wikipedia links show this:
This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. (May 2010)
The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. (March 2011)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (May 2010)
This article may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. (May 2010)]


I also taken the time to view gun control laws of the countries listed on your List of countries by firearm-related death rate

It turns out that the worst of the list have more strict gun control laws than the US does.
Sources:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/el-salvador
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/jamaica
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/honduras
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/guatemala

Belsfir wrote:Calling my materials as "cherry picked" is rather a poor way to refute them. I have my materials from credible sources, while you have not cited the sources of your own materials posted (other than that from the UNODC). Upon examining the links for the charts, they came from Wikipedia (which, mind you, is not an acceptable source for any research).

If you think that "cherry picking" is going on here, then it is more true for your own argument than mine.

Er... no.

This study mentioned here, mentioned as a creditable source from Harvard, is being explained and interpreted through a very clear political bias... for example listen to it's admission near the end of the article, not to mention this is from the "American Civil Rights Union" that was formed under President Ronald Regan believing the "American Civil Liberties Union" was too liberal and identifies itself as conservative/republican advancing causes of the same.

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive (11th paragraph)
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not
pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their
study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor
that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime
does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say,
is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently
counterproductive.

I proposed that this isn't a cut or dry matter, which is why I choose inconclusive as mentioned previously, which apparently according to your creditable source even with political bias concedes just my argument. But notice that it then goes forward in spite of the researchers explicit stressing to the contrary the article concludes exactly what they asked NOT to be concluded.

Not to mention that in this study (pdf format) only nine nations are compared, which when examining the wiki sources mentioned previously with information collected by UNODC shows Luxembourg with significantly less intentional homicide as of 2012 even though gun ownership per captia has remained about the same. Which again reaffirms just what I stated earlier, inconclusive.

Then again you cite two stories of guns saving people, here and here. The first one gives the story of an off-duty police officer working as a security guard... police/security having guns, shocking! This story is also from breitbart.com which is a self-identified conservative news source. The one from "naturalnews" is clearly biased and almost made me chuckle when I read this presented as a serious consideration:

Is this all a ploy to open the door for UN troops on the streets in America?
Finally, it's worth considering that civil war may be exactly what Obama wants to cause. It would rip America apart, making way for United Nations troops to invade and seize control, claiming "humanitarian" justification. This could be precisely the action needed to unleash blue helmets across America and push for nationwide disarmament and military occupation.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_confiscation_executive_orders_cops.html#ixzz2K3svDBbU

Yes... there is nothing unreasonable about that I suppose? Who wouldn't want to plunge America into civil war and have UN taking control of America. Who wouldn't want UN Peacekeeping troops on every corner oppressing Americans? Also why does this sound more and more like UNATCO from "Deus Ex" (2000)?

If you consider me presenting general information apart of a discussion to justify my conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive, which your own source that you described as the "coup de grace" of your argument presented just the same... I'm not sure what to tell you?

Belsfir wrote:[Esp with the fact that the wikipedia links show this:
This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. (May 2010)
The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. (March 2011)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (May 2010)
This article may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. (May 2010)]


I also taken the time to view gun control laws of the countries listed on your List of countries by firearm-related death rate

It turns out that the worst of the list have more strict gun control laws than the US does.
Sources:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/el-salvador
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/jamaica
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/honduras
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/guatemala

The disputes on the neutrality, citation, and other issues on Wikipedia is relevant I will admit... but is it any more reliable than the rest of the internet? If you can elaborate on that be welcome.

These nations on the human development index are rather low... these sites also gives me the impression that the laws on the books there are similar to that of Canada, which is doing a lot better in regards to intentional homicide. It also gives me no information that I could see at passing on the ability of law enforcement to execute such regulations. So I am going to say apples to oranges, the same reason I would consider a comparison between Mexico and the United States unfair is the same reason I consider this unfair.

SkepticalDragon wrote:

Belsfir wrote:Calling my materials as "cherry picked" is rather a poor way to refute them. I have my materials from credible sources, while you have not cited the sources of your own materials posted (other than that from the UNODC). Upon examining the links for the charts, they came from Wikipedia (which, mind you, is not an acceptable source for any research).

If you think that "cherry picking" is going on here, then it is more true for your own argument than mine.

Er... no.

This study mentioned here, mentioned as a creditable source from Harvard, is being explained and interpreted through a very clear political bias... for example listen to it's admission near the end of the article, not to mention this is from the "American Civil Rights Union" that was formed under President Ronald Regan believing the "American Civil Liberties Union" was too liberal and identifies itself as conservative/republican advancing causes of the same.

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive (11th paragraph)
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not
pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their
study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor
that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime
does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say,
is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently
counterproductive.

I proposed that this isn't a cut or dry matter, which is why I choose inconclusive as mentioned previously, which apparently according to your creditable source even with political bias concedes just my argument. But notice that it then goes forward in spite of the researchers explicit stressing to the contrary the article concludes exactly what they asked NOT to be concluded.

Not to mention that in this study (pdf format) only nine nations are compared, which when examining the wiki sources mentioned previously with information collected by UNODC shows Luxembourg with significantly less intentional homicide as of 2012 even though gun ownership per captia has remained about the same. Which again reaffirms just what I stated earlier, inconclusive.

Then again you cite two stories of guns saving people, here and here. The first one gives the story of an off-duty police officer working as a security guard... police/security having guns, shocking! This story is also from breitbart.com which is a self-identified conservative news source. The one from "naturalnews" is clearly biased and almost made me chuckle when I read this presented as a serious consideration:

Is this all a ploy to open the door for UN troops on the streets in America?
Finally, it's worth considering that civil war may be exactly what Obama wants to cause. It would rip America apart, making way for United Nations troops to invade and seize control, claiming "humanitarian" justification. This could be precisely the action needed to unleash blue helmets across America and push for nationwide disarmament and military occupation.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_confiscation_executive_orders_cops.html#ixzz2K3svDBbU

Yes... there is nothing unreasonable about that I suppose? Who wouldn't want to plunge America into civil war and have UN taking control of America. Who wouldn't want UN Peacekeeping troops on every corner oppressing Americans? Also why does this sound more and more like UNATCO from "Deus Ex" (2000)?

If you consider me presenting general information apart of a discussion to justify my conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive, which your own source that you described as the "coup de grace" of your argument presented just the same... I'm not sure what to tell you?

You attack my sources for biased conclusions that originates from speculation. While ALL of your sources came from a clearly expressed liberal bias, coming from a secondhand source of information that any can edit.

The conclusions created by the opinions of others is something I treat like national news. They are something I seldom listen to, I only care for the figures.

This truly just seems as if you merely do not want to accept these sources of information. Pay only heed to the .pdf from Harvard, and the data and figures of the others, because this does not shake my argument's standing points.

Belsfir wrote:

SkepticalDragon wrote:

Belsfir wrote:Calling my materials as "cherry picked" is rather a poor way to refute them. I have my materials from credible sources, while you have not cited the sources of your own materials posted (other than that from the UNODC). Upon examining the links for the charts, they came from Wikipedia (which, mind you, is not an acceptable source for any research).

If you think that "cherry picking" is going on here, then it is more true for your own argument than mine.

Er... no.

This study mentioned here, mentioned as a creditable source from Harvard, is being explained and interpreted through a very clear political bias... for example listen to it's admission near the end of the article, not to mention this is from the "American Civil Rights Union" that was formed under President Ronald Regan believing the "American Civil Liberties Union" was too liberal and identifies itself as conservative/republican advancing causes of the same.

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive (11th paragraph)
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not
pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their
study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor
that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime
does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say,
is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently
counterproductive.

I proposed that this isn't a cut or dry matter, which is why I choose inconclusive as mentioned previously, which apparently according to your creditable source even with political bias concedes just my argument. But notice that it then goes forward in spite of the researchers explicit stressing to the contrary the article concludes exactly what they asked NOT to be concluded.

Not to mention that in this study (pdf format) only nine nations are compared, which when examining the wiki sources mentioned previously with information collected by UNODC shows Luxembourg with significantly less intentional homicide as of 2012 even though gun ownership per captia has remained about the same. Which again reaffirms just what I stated earlier, inconclusive.

Then again you cite two stories of guns saving people, here and here. The first one gives the story of an off-duty police officer working as a security guard... police/security having guns, shocking! This story is also from breitbart.com which is a self-identified conservative news source. The one from "naturalnews" is clearly biased and almost made me chuckle when I read this presented as a serious consideration:

Is this all a ploy to open the door for UN troops on the streets in America?
Finally, it's worth considering that civil war may be exactly what Obama wants to cause. It would rip America apart, making way for United Nations troops to invade and seize control, claiming "humanitarian" justification. This could be precisely the action needed to unleash blue helmets across America and push for nationwide disarmament and military occupation.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_confiscation_executive_orders_cops.html#ixzz2K3svDBbU

Yes... there is nothing unreasonable about that I suppose? Who wouldn't want to plunge America into civil war and have UN taking control of America. Who wouldn't want UN Peacekeeping troops on every corner oppressing Americans? Also why does this sound more and more like UNATCO from "Deus Ex" (2000)?

If you consider me presenting general information apart of a discussion to justify my conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive, which your own source that you described as the "coup de grace" of your argument presented just the same... I'm not sure what to tell you?

You attack my sources for biased conclusions that originates from speculation. While ALL of your sources came from a clearly expressed liberal bias, coming from a secondhand source of information that any can edit.

The conclusions created by the opinions of others is something I treat like national news. They are something I seldom listen to, I only care for the figures.

This truly just seems as if you merely do not want to accept these sources of information. Pay only heed to the .pdf from Harvard, and the data and figures of the others, because this does not shake my argument's standing points.

Again I don't know what to tell you, but aside from telling me that my sources are liberal what about them is liberal? Also considering all of your sources were second handed and from conservative news/opinion outlets... I'm not sure thats much better than Wikipedia?

If you only care about the figures... then maybe you should listen to the people who complied those figures? Which assure you even according to your own website that the answer is inconclusive...

As mentioned in the study itself on the figures:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Page 27
On their face, Tables 1, 2, and 3 and the comparisons gleaned
from them suggest that gun ownership is irrelevant, or has little
relevance, to murder. Historical and demographic comparisons
offer further evidence. Again, all the data may be misleading. It is
conceivable that more guns do equal more murder, but that this
causation does not appear because some unidentifiable extraneous
factor always intervenes.

SkepticalDragon wrote:

Belsfir wrote:

SkepticalDragon wrote:

Belsfir wrote:Calling my materials as "cherry picked" is rather a poor way to refute them. I have my materials from credible sources, while you have not cited the sources of your own materials posted (other than that from the UNODC). Upon examining the links for the charts, they came from Wikipedia (which, mind you, is not an acceptable source for any research).

If you think that "cherry picking" is going on here, then it is more true for your own argument than mine.

Er... no.

This study mentioned here, mentioned as a creditable source from Harvard, is being explained and interpreted through a very clear political bias... for example listen to it's admission near the end of the article, not to mention this is from the "American Civil Rights Union" that was formed under President Ronald Regan believing the "American Civil Liberties Union" was too liberal and identifies itself as conservative/republican advancing causes of the same.

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive (11th paragraph)
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not
pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their
study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor
that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime
does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say,
is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently
counterproductive.

I proposed that this isn't a cut or dry matter, which is why I choose inconclusive as mentioned previously, which apparently according to your creditable source even with political bias concedes just my argument. But notice that it then goes forward in spite of the researchers explicit stressing to the contrary the article concludes exactly what they asked NOT to be concluded.

Not to mention that in this study (pdf format) only nine nations are compared, which when examining the wiki sources mentioned previously with information collected by UNODC shows Luxembourg with significantly less intentional homicide as of 2012 even though gun ownership per captia has remained about the same. Which again reaffirms just what I stated earlier, inconclusive.

Then again you cite two stories of guns saving people, here and here. The first one gives the story of an off-duty police officer working as a security guard... police/security having guns, shocking! This story is also from breitbart.com which is a self-identified conservative news source. The one from "naturalnews" is clearly biased and almost made me chuckle when I read this presented as a serious consideration:

Is this all a ploy to open the door for UN troops on the streets in America?
Finally, it's worth considering that civil war may be exactly what Obama wants to cause. It would rip America apart, making way for United Nations troops to invade and seize control, claiming "humanitarian" justification. This could be precisely the action needed to unleash blue helmets across America and push for nationwide disarmament and military occupation.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_confiscation_executive_orders_cops.html#ixzz2K3svDBbU

Yes... there is nothing unreasonable about that I suppose? Who wouldn't want to plunge America into civil war and have UN taking control of America. Who wouldn't want UN Peacekeeping troops on every corner oppressing Americans? Also why does this sound more and more like UNATCO from "Deus Ex" (2000)?

If you consider me presenting general information apart of a discussion to justify my conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive, which your own source that you described as the "coup de grace" of your argument presented just the same... I'm not sure what to tell you?

You attack my sources for biased conclusions that originates from speculation. While ALL of your sources came from a clearly expressed liberal bias, coming from a secondhand source of information that any can edit.

The conclusions created by the opinions of others is something I treat like national news. They are something I seldom listen to, I only care for the figures.

This truly just seems as if you merely do not want to accept these sources of information. Pay only heed to the .pdf from Harvard, and the data and figures of the others, because this does not shake my argument's standing points.

Again I don't know what to tell you, but aside from telling me that my sources are liberal what about them is liberal? Also considering all of your sources were second handed and from conservative news/opinion outlets... I'm not sure thats much better than Wikipedia?

If you only care about the figures... then maybe you should listen to the people who complied those figures? Which assure you even according to your own website that the answer is inconclusive...

The Wikipedia links clearly stated that they lacked neutrality and deducted conclusions not in correspondence from the sources. The UN is also quite liberal as well. It doesn't surprise me that arguments against gun control originated from conservative sources, and that arguments for gun control originated from liberal sources. This is why the Harvard study is quite a gem, since Harvard did not throw the common conclusions of either side.

I was waiting for this topic to spring up eventually. I'm willing to accept many things as opinions but this is not one of those times. There is only one TRUE purpose for the right to carry arms and that is to protect. Protect against robbers? Protect against gun wielding maniacs? That is small time the real reason is to protect people from the GOVERNMENT.

A pistol is NOT going to stop a body armored soldier from breaking into your home. Gun registration only tells the government who has the big guns and therefore they would be the first target if God forbid America has another civil way.

Stop looking at the issue with emotions and realize that crime is either a problem of poverty (stealing, gangs, terrible domestic issues), or simply the RANDOM acts of insanity (can't explain this one....ask a pastor?)

I wonder sometimes if people are either looking at the issue with emotions (understandable but false) or for control (Nazi Germany did the same thing and it worked well)

Fearing you own government and relying on them to do what they feel is right is not a democracy. It's suppose the be the other way around, the government MUST fear their own people in order for anyone to have any say in matters.

People are people. Some are crazy and will kill for no reason and sadly there is no cure to that.

Doomguy wrote:I was waiting for this topic to spring up eventually. I'm willing to accept many things as opinions but this is not one of those times. There is only one TRUE purpose for the right to carry arms and that is to protect. Protect against robbers? Protect against gun wielding maniacs? That is small time the real reason is to protect people from the GOVERNMENT.

A pistol is NOT going to stop a body armored soldier from breaking into your home. Gun registration only tells the government who has the big guns and therefore they would be the first target if God forbid America has another civil way.

Stop looking at the issue with emotions and realize that crime is either a problem of poverty (stealing, gangs, terrible domestic issues), or simply the RANDOM acts of insanity (can't explain this one....ask a pastor?)

I wonder sometimes if people are either looking at the issue with emotions (understandable but false) or for control (Nazi Germany did the same thing and it worked well)

Lol, I knew it was a matter of time until someone brought this up too, it was inevitable.


The formation of a militia is the primary reason why we have the right to bear arms, I mentioned that earlier.
But that argument does not buy it over, people don't think such a thing will ever be needed.


Oh, and on Nazi Germany:
Ever heard of Kitty Werthmann?
She wrote this about the Nazi take over in Austria:
“Then they took our guns

“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”

Sadly I'm one of the few young adults that seem to have studied their history and understand the many reasons dictators rise to power. (Fun fact Adolf Hitler was actually ELECTED to office.)

No country lasts forever with the same kind of government. I could almost argue that democracies have the shortest shelf life.

Doomguy wrote:Sadly I'm one of the few young adults that seem to have studied their history and understand the many reasons dictators rise to power. (Fun fact Adolf Hitler was actually ELECTED to office.)

No country lasts forever with the same kind of government. I could almost argue that democracies have the shortest shelf life.

Funner fact: It was due to England, France, America and Russia Screwing them over after WW1 that gave Hitler the chance to rise to power via powerful propaganda combine with previous life experiences which mean't he had the conviction to do what he did as well as the opportunity to do it...

But in regard to your shelf life comment. Democracy is a big part of capitalism which survives due to everyones need for material goods or goals which can be achieved through money or monetary basis... So as with any political belief it will change based on the view of the people (Whether majority or "forced")

It's not the guns that kill people. It's the men that pull the trigger. If you take away the guns, than they'll just find another way to do what they want. There's a reason that criminals are criminals in the first place. Because they don't follow the laws. If you enforce gun control, only the law-abiding citizens will have their guns confiscated. The criminals will still have them, the only difference now, is that their targets are now defenseless.

BTW, my twin wrote an essay on this subject. I'll see if I can get it on here.

god, i hate reading these threads, they are so long, i dont want to have to LOOK UP my proof, but im not going to tell you some BS i made up in my head.

banning guns is a bad idea, although gun related murders would go down it wouldnt lower crime. think of it this way, when a store is robbed by someone with a knife, how do they defend themselves? with a gun, this is the same for personal assualt, however, if its gun vs nothing you have less of a chance to get away than knife vs nothing. HOWEVER criminals dont exactly target people that are fit and in-shape, running will only get you so far against a regular street criminal.

IM TIRED OF THIS TALK OF MASS MURDER!!!
this "mass murder" thing is so overblown its not funny, and i find it HORRIBLY DISREPECTFUL TO PEOPLE KILLED IN NON-MASS MURDER all people care about is large instances of people getting killed at one time. i know some people also look at regualr crime, but ALOT of people only look at sandy hook and other large-scale crimes as a basis for thier opinions. in sandy hook, 20+ people were killed, although in that same day, SH EXCLUDED (this is just opinion) im sure more people were killed across the US as a whole (not necessarily guns) SH is just EASIER TO REPORT ON THAN 20+ SEPARATE MURDERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY

as Doomguy said above much of the larger, more powerful dictators first banned guns before they took over. im no history buff, but, that old saying of history repeating itself...there has to be some merit to it

this is a bad refference that anti-gun people like to bring up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
this does not reflect overall crime.

on the note of japan.
the gun no gun law was made in 1958!!! guns have had alot of time to dwindle down and not to mention, at the time, i dont belive guns were as glorifyed as they are now. also, police are on top of the anti-gun laws making sure its kept in control as much as they can. HOWEVER just becasue guns are banned doesnt mean criminals are not getting thier hands on them (which seems to be what people will think happen if they are banned in the US) http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/806/9PacRimLPolyJ165.pdf?sequence=1 scroll down and you will see that guns are actually rising.

and now for the last part in comparison to japan. this doesnt need facts or anything...how do you think guns get into japan? japan is an island that has had guns banned for around 60 years. America is in close relation to many other countries not to mention already haveing a (pardon me) FUCK TON OF GUNS ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY.

if guns are banned in america i can promise you gun-murder crimes will SPIKE OH SO FUCKING HARD. what needs to happen is PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND TRACKING OF ALL GUNS IN THE US. but...*sigh*
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom
and
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf

i know, its comedy central, but this guy is smart.

and now something simple, america is never invaded (as many of you know, china basicly owns us) because EVERYONE HAS GUNS, that is very frightening for anyone willing to attack a country when not only do you have to fight the military, but you also have to fight the citenziens who are just as armed as the military. americas military is LARGER THAN THE PAID MILITARY WE ARE OUR OWN MILITARY.

so the question is, why doesnt anyone attack small island japan with all thier no-guns? well, 1:america has a partnership with them, 2:they have a great navy and 3:Gundams

please, i encourage someone to prove me wrong as i love learning about something i have no idea about

First, let me start by saying that it is refreshing to see an actual discussion instead of two sides telling each other how stupid they are.

Now, these are the facts as i understand them.

1. Guns make it easier for people to commit crimes. No matter how you cut the cake, it is easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife or bat.

2. Gun control has never been proven to reduce overall crime, though it does slighty reduce gun crime.

3. I've never been a fan of comparing other countries crime rates to that of the US. The US has far more gang violence than other countries which skews the results.

4. Every time a state in the US implements concealed carry, crime in that state drops, somtimes by as much as 20%.

5. Chicago and New York City have the some of the strictest gun laws in the US and also have the highest crime rates. Part of this can be atrributed to a higher concentration of people, but it's mainly because people in those places lack a means to defend themselves.

That's all I could think of off the top of my head. I am definitly pro-gun so the above is probably a little biased.
I alos think that if someone is going to carry a firearm, they need to it responsibly. Thier aim should be sharp, they should know how to use the weapon, should research the correct load for the caliber of weapon they are using, and above they need to know when to use the weapon.