Gun control

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 51
Topic's author
#1
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Fact: The United Kingdom has always had a lower homicide rate than the United States, Even when British citizens could legally buy machine guns (Briton's modern era of gun control did not ramp up until the 1960s). The difference is cultural, Not legal.

Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, The rate of crime " especially violent crime " has risen.

Fact: Ironically, Firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. [320]

Fact: Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, More so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100, 000 population). [321]

Fact: 67% of British residents surveyed believe that "As a result of gun and knife crime [rising], The area I live in is not as safe as it was five years ago. " [322]

Fact: U. K. Street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, Murders up 4%, And rapes were up 14%. [323]

Fact: This trend continued in the U. K in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, And a 22% increase in robberies.

Fact: In 1919, Before it had any gun control, The U. K. Had a homicide rate that was 8% of the U. S. Rate. By 1986, And after enacting significant gun control, The rate was 9% " practically unchanged. [324]

Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, A gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, A crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, Grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. [326] To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, In part to preserve tourism. [327].


#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Fact: The United Kingdom has always had a lower homicide rate than the United States, Even when British citizens could legally buy machine guns (Briton's modern era of gun control did not ramp up until the 1960s). The difference is cultural, Not legal.
And part of the US culture is glorifying guns and gun ownership. perhaps you need to change that part of your culture. Common sense gun laws would be a very good start. 

Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, The rate of crime " especially violent crime " has risen.
 Where did you get this? I can't seem to find definitive numbers. But the stats I do see say the high point of their crime was in 1995, just before they banned guns, and have been in decline ever since. If you have other stats please provide them. 

Fact: Ironically, Firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned
This doesn't appear to be true. Here is a link showing that gun crime, while up since 2014, is significantly down since the early 2000s. 

Fact: Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe,
Again, I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Please provide sourcing. 


I'm just going to stop responding to these point by point because the stats I see don't agree with what you are saying. Could you please provide sourcing for your claims?
Topic's author
#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
And part of the US culture is glorifying guns and gun ownership. perhaps you need to change that part of your culture. Common sense gun laws would be a very good start. 
Thats a problem? Gun culture is the least toxic culture here in America

Where did you get this? I can't seem to find definitive numbers. But the stats I do see say the high point of their crime was in 1995, just before they banned guns, and have been in decline ever since. If you have other stats please provide them. 
Britain Violent Crime
and a little more than the EU average (123). The homicide rate in the UK was 1.2 per 100,000 in 2016 the highest rate in Western Europe outside of Belgium and France. The homicide rate in England and Wales increased 39% from the 38 year low of 0.89 per 100,000 in 2015 to a decade high of 1.23 per 100,000 in 2018.


This doesn't appear to be true. Here is a link showing that gun crime, while up since 2014, is significantly down since the early 2000s. 
IN THE DECADE IT WAS BANNED: learn to read.

Again, I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Please provide sourcing. 
Fine, 

the homicide rate in the UK was 1.2 per 100,000 in 2016 the highest rate in Western Europe outside of Belgium and France.
#4
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Thats a problem? Gun culture is the least toxic culture here in America
It literally killing 10's of thousands of people. If that is what you consider least toxic, i'm really not sure what your metric is. How many people have to die before you consider something "toxic"?

Britain Violent Crime and a little more than the EU average (123). The homicide rate in the UK was 1.2 per 100,000 in 2016
So britain is slightly higher than average in the EU. But most of the EU also have gun control. They are still way, way, below the US rate. Your claim was "Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, The rate of crime " especially violent crime " has risen." but this source does not prove that. It says they have gone up lately. And, as I said, they have gone up since 2014. but they are still well down from when they banned guns, so your "fact" would still appear to be untrue. 

IN THE DECADE IT WAS BANNED: learn to read.
Please try to remain civil. If I have misread or misunderstood, please clarify. What exactly have I misunderstood? Gun crimes are significantly lower today than they were 2002. Are you attempting to say that gun crimes doubled between 1997 and 2007 (ie the decade after guns were banned)? This does not appear to be true. I would like to understand what you are arguing has occurred. 

the homicide rate in the UK was 1.2 per 100,000 in 2016 the highest rate in Western Europe outside of Belgium and France.
This seems to disprove your own point. You said that they had the highest violent crime rate in Europe. but your own quote says Belgium and France's are higher. Please note that also says specifically "western" europe. It isn't clear which countries are not being included in that. A previous statistic you provided said that they were only slightly above average so that would lead me to believe that there are other eastern european countries that would also be higher.
Topic's author
#5
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
It literally killing 10's of thousands of people. If that is what you consider least toxic, i'm really not sure what your metric is. How many people have to die before you consider something "toxic"?

Those are criminals, they are just thousands of criminals while over 100 million gun owners, Gun culture is not toxic when compared to politics or celebrity shit.

So britain is slightly higher than average in the EU. But most of the EU also have gun control. They are still way, way, below the US rate. Your claim was "Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, The rate of crime " especially violent crime " has risen." but this source does not prove that. It says they have gone up lately. And, as I said, they have gone up since 2014. but they are still well down from when they banned guns, so your "fact" would still appear to be untrue. 
But Britons gun control has been proven to be unchanged after and before the gun ban, plus in-home bulgurlys are 60% of all bulguries in the Uk will they only account fro 13% of bulgaries in the U.S, clearly there is a link between guns and violent crime because guns stop 8 to 10x thimes more violent crimes.

Please try to remain civil. If I have misread or misunderstood, please clarify. What exactly have I misunderstood? Gun crimes are significantly lower today than they were 2002. Are you attempting to say that gun crimes doubled between 1997 and 2007 (ie the decade after guns were banned)? This does not appear to be true. I would like to understand what you are arguing has occurred. 

"Offences involving firearms have increased in all but four police areas in England and Wales since 1998, figures obtained by the Tories reveal.
One part of the country has seen the problem increase almost seven fold as the availability of guns, and criminals' williness to use them rises.
The number of people injured or killed by a gun has also doubled under Labour.
It emerged last week that armed police are to carry out regular street patrols for the first time to help combat gun crime in London.
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: "These figures are all the more alarming given that it is only a week since the Metropolitan Police said it was increasing regular armed patrols in some areas of the capital."

Clearly the gun ban did not work

This seems to disprove your own point. You said that they had the highest violent crime rate in Europe. but your own quote says Belgium and France's are higher. Please note that also says specifically "western" europe. It isn't clear which countries are not being included in that. A previous statistic you provided said that they were only slightly above average so that would lead me to believe that there are other eastern european countries that would also be higher.
Look at a map, what do you think western europe is, anyway It is homicides, but it was violent crime where britain is up
#6
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Those are criminals, they are just thousands of criminals while over 100 million gun owners, Gun culture is not toxic when compared to politics or celebrity shit.
No, they are just people. There are alot of victims of gun crimes who are not criminals. You could save thousands of lives per year by enacting stricter gun laws. If something is killing that many people, then it seems pretty toxic to me. 

But Britons gun control has been proven to be unchanged after and before the gun ban, plus in-home bulgurlys are 60% of all bulguries in the Uk will they only account fro 13% of bulgaries in the U.S, clearly there is a link between guns and violent crime because guns stop 8 to 10x thimes more violent crimes.
I'm not certain what you are trying to say. The statistics say gun crimes are way down, so obviously they are not unchanged. You are comparing percentages of where burglaries take place. Maybe american burglars just prefer breaking into businesses. This doesn't support your argument as far as I can tell. 

In the decade, the 2000's lets take a look at it,
Here is an article about why the statistics you are trying to use are not helpful. Basically they changed how they counted violent crimes. The year they made the change there was a huge spike because crimes that previously wouldn't have been counted were now being counted. So trying to compare stats from before 2003 to stats in the few years following is completely useless and intentionally misleading. In the article you provided, the conservatives were intentionally using this change to the statistics to sell the narrative that there was a huge crime wave.

Look at a map, what do you think western europe is, anyway It is homicides, but it was violent crime where britain is up
My point is that they aren't even the highest in western Europe, let alone all of Europe as you had claimed. If you are meaning because of the changes to the stats in 2003, then I have already addressed that. If you mean between 2003 and now then the stats do not support your assertion. 
#7
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
If something is killing that many people, then it seems pretty toxic to me. 
like cars, tobacco, alcohol, swimming pools......ban those too right?

You could save thousands of lives per year by enacting stricter car, tobacco, swimming pool laws.

Hey let's outlaw drugs to save lives!  man can't believe I never thought of that before..... hahaha

you are barking up the wrong tree imo you'll create a bigger black market, unintended consequences and markets.

I picked this video because it's old, imagine the improvements made since then, what will be and the costs going down

you can mold your own from aluminum cans melted down, then there's resin and other composite materials.  Do you really want to open pandora's box?


#8
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
like cars, tobacco, alcohol, swimming pools......ban those too right?
We have strict laws about who can drive a car. You need to take tests to prove you can handle the responsibility. You need to have a driver's license. You need to license your car so people know who owns what cars and how many. i think having those kinds of laws would be great for guns as well. 

Tobacco and alcohol, for the most part, only kill the person who buys them. Therefore if people want to kill themselves they should be able to. Guns are designed to kill other people. 

Perhaps we need tighter laws on pools, I hadn't really given that any thought. Presumably on securing your pool so children can't get in unattended. But since guns kill way more people it is a much lower priority. 

you are barking up the wrong tree imo you'll create a bigger black market, unintended consequences and markets.
Of course there will be a black market. I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise. But if they need to be bought on the black market, that makes them expensive and hard to get. If they are expensive and hard to get then that significantly reduces the number of them in the hands of criminals.

Do you really want to open pandora's box?
What pandora's box are you talking about? Lots of western countries have strict gun controls and they have much lower gun crime and homicide rates. We have decades of evidence that gun control works. The idea that there is some big mystery about what would happen is a right wing talking point. 
#9
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
We have strict laws about who can drive a car. You need to take tests to prove you can handle the responsibility. You need to have a driver's license. You need to license your car so people know who owns what cars and how many. i think having those kinds of laws would be great for guns as well. 
what are the gun laws then compared to what you just described?  Have you gone through the process to purchase a firearm?
"strict laws about who can drive a car."  In some states 15 year olds can drive cars, might even be as low as 14 in some states, do you consider that "strict" compared to the age limitations of firearms?

Tobacco and alcohol, for the most part, only kill the person who buys them. Therefore if people want to kill themselves they should be able to. Guns are designed to kill other people. 
I would refer you to the CDC website etc and research the effects of 2nd hand smoke and d.u.i. deaths (of people other than the driver).

Objects only have the a purpose of which someone uses them.  Guns are designed to expel a projectile that is all.  How people use them is another matter.

But if they need to be bought on the black market, that makes them expensive and hard to get.
guess you didn't watch video? , d.i.y. guns have been a thing for a very long time, technology just makes it easier, better, faster and cheaper.

If I understand you correctly, you think if law abiding citizens are disarmed that eventually that will have an impact on the ability for criminals to get guns.  Is that how you see it working because I can't see any other way.

How long would that take before any real change could be seen?
How many guns are stolen from law enforcement or military bases?  Wouldn't that go up or would they be disarmed as well?
Don't you think the diy technology would advance much much faster?

Search for videos about the homemade guns, blackmarket in the Philippines as one example.  I could see that happening or increasing in Mexico/S.America.

Consider the guy who created the 3d printed gun and gave out the files for free, don't you think that will happen but on a huge scale?  I mean there's already TONS of videos.

Once law abiding citizens have been disarmed don't think that crime like break ins, robberies etc would go up?

What pandora's box are you talking about?
consider the restrictions some states tried to place but people being as creative as they are found ways around them, bump stock is a pretty good example.  More restrictions and or bans will drive that even more along with diy.  Then whatever controls there are now will no longer exist.


#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
what are the gun laws then compared to what you just described?  Have you gone through the process to purchase a firearm?
In which state and in which circumstances? In some states you can legally buy a gun with little to no oversight. 

 In some states 15 year olds can drive cars, might even be as low as 14 in some states, do you consider that "strict" compared to the age limitations of firearms?
They still need proper training and to pass a test proving they are capable of using the tool. Most states have nothing like that for guns. There are alot of 15 year olds who are more careful with their driving than some 40 year olds are with their guns. if you want to advocate for guns being like cars I would be very happy to agree. That means all gun owners would need to get proper training, get a license, register any gun they buy etc. Those would all be hugely positive moves. 

If I understand you correctly, you think if law abiding citizens are disarmed that eventually that will have an impact on the ability for criminals to get guns.  Is that how you see it working because I can't see any other way.
sort of. Many criminals buy their guns legally. They then use those legal guns to commit crimes. Preventing them from buying a gun would prevent alot of gun crime. Making guns less easily available will also help to dry up the readily available black market guns. 

How long would that take before any real change could be seen?
What kind of argument is that? It might not solve the problem instantly so we shouldn't try to solve the problem? It will take as long as it takes. The longer you do nothing the more people will die before you start to fix it.

How many guns are stolen from law enforcement or military bases?
I couldn't say, but if the number is in any way significant then that is an argument for seriously ramping up security measures for firearms for law enforcement and military bases. It is in no way an argument against gun control.

Don't you think the diy technology would advance much much faster?
Potentially. But you need to consider why people would use them. There is a reason why you don't see many people using automatic weapons to carry out crimes. Because getting caught with one will automatically land you in prison for 10 years. If a gun might marginally increase your odds of successfully carrying out a crime but significantly increase you potential jail time, that is a pretty good deterrent to using one even if you can get one illegally. 

Consider the guy who created the 3d printed gun and gave out the files for free, don't you think that will happen but on a huge scale?  I mean there's already TONS of videos.
1) those guns are terrible. You get like 2 or 3 shots before it falls apart. home made weapons are, in almost all cases, significantly inferior to professionally produced ones.
2) they do that because it isn't really illegal to do so. If you get caught with one it is a slap on the wrist. If you were going to get 10 years in prison for printing or owning one of those, is it really worth it to do that?

Once law abiding citizens have been disarmed don't think that crime like break ins, robberies etc would go up?
Why would they? A criminal who wants to do a break in/robbery is not going to know if the person he is robbing has a gun. He is just going to rob them. And even if it did go up temporarily while the US was in the process of dealing with the problem, that still isn't an argument against trying to solve the problem. Allowing the problem to continue forever is worse. 

consider the restrictions some states tried to place but people being as creative as they are found ways around them, bump stock is a pretty good example. 
It's easy at the moment because there is no consistency. No matter what rules a state or city put in place, the next state over will have laxer rules. You can just drive across the state line and come right back. If you want to address the problem you need national rules and consistent enforcement. 

More restrictions and or bans will drive that even more along with diy.  Then whatever controls there are now will no longer exist.
How could you think that this is a real argument? Some people might find ways around the law so we shouldn't have a law? Some people find ways around everything. People find ways to cook meth in their basement, that doesn't mean you let them sell meth at walmart. Will enforcing the law require work, of course. Will it ever be 100% successful, no law ever is. But that is not an argument for doing nothing. 
#11
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
In which state and in which circumstances? In some states you can legally buy a gun with little to no oversight. 
which state can ignore the federal N.I.C.S. check, aka background check.

They still need proper training and to pass a test proving they are capable of using the tool. Most states have nothing like that for guns.
I have no problem with reasonable training requirements for anyone wishing to take their firearm outside their home.  That could only happen if they weren't banned however.....
There are alot of 15 year olds who are more careful with their driving than some 40 year olds are with their guns.

um I think the accident rate of both objects will show that isn't true, at all.

get a license, register any gun they buy etc.
can you name one, just one instance where a license or registration would have prevented a crime?

Making guns less easily available will also help to dry up the readily available black market guns. 
how do you make them "less easily available"?  You do know Kate Steinle was shot with a law enforcement officer's gun right?
I disagree what will happen in increased and new black markets for the reasons and examples I have already given.

The longer you do nothing the more people will die before you start to fix it.
hasn't the murder rate been going down or at the very least stagnant by doing nothing?  How do you explain that?

There is a reason why you don't see many people using automatic weapons to carry out crimes. Because getting caught with one will automatically land you in prison for 10 years.
LOL that's not why, not the reason at all.  Even real military rifles can be switched to semi auto, and for good reasons.

If a gun might marginally increase your odds of successfully carrying out a crime but significantly increase you potential jail time, that is a pretty good deterrent to using one even if you can get one illegally. 
I believe using a gun to commit a crime carries more of a sentence than committing the same crime without one.  Apparently that is not a deterrent.  Regardless the penalties can be increases without any kind of ban or constitutional challenge.  So why haven't they done that?

those guns are terrible. 
that's because there is little to no demand for them, do you want to increase the demand for them because that's the best way to increase their quality (rapidly) and decrease costs.

A criminal who wants to do a break in/robbery is not going to know if the person he is robbing has a gun.
I thought you were advocating for a ban, so you aren't in favor of a ban?

that still isn't an argument against trying to solve the problem.
oh?  don't I have a right to life?  it can't be a right if you can't protect it.
 No matter what rules a state or city put in place, the next state over will have laxer rules. 
Nope, look at how NY tried to ban cosmetic features on guns and how they were redesigned to essentially do the same thing but comply with the laws.

How could you think that this is a real argument? Some people might find ways around the law so we shouldn't have a law?
you would essentially punish non criminal citizens and or make them criminals with your "proposals"  We have laws which aren't enforced, too lax and too light a punishment.  How about fixing what is broken w/o re-inventing the wheel?

Are you going to send armed people door to door confiscating guns?  what if they don't comply?  throw them all in jail so they lose their jobs, homes etc or better yet the police execute them on sight for resisting.  That sound like a good idea?

you want to reduce the number of guns but haven't really articulated how that would be accomplished.

So if there's 14000 gun murders and let's say only one person is killed per gun, how difficult would it be to supply a black market with 60000 guns?  5x the number of individuals murdered.

Of the stolen guns recovered they are on the street an average of 14 years.

I still can't see how you wouldn't create an unarmed population at the mercy of armed criminals.  And then think crime would go down.






Topic's author
#12
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
No, they are just people. There are alot of victims of gun crimes who are not criminals. You could save thousands of lives per year by enacting stricter gun laws. If something is killing that many people, then it seems pretty toxic to me. 
Again car and motorcycle culture must be toxic then because it kills people, your measuring of how a certain culture is toxic is wrong, the gun culture does not include criminals who shoot victims, it includes gun owners,airsoft,militas,etc.

I'm not certain what you are trying to say. The statistics say gun crimes are way down, so obviously they are not unchanged. You are comparing percentages of where burglaries take place. Maybe american burglars just prefer breaking into businesses. This doesn't support your argument as far as I can tell. 
What statistics, sure it might be down now but it doubled during the 2000's and in the last 100 years the gun crime rate hasn't changed, it proven to be an ineffective gun ban as always. 

Here is an article about why the statistics you are trying to use are not helpful. Basically they changed how they counted violent crimes. The year they made the change there was a huge spike because crimes that previously wouldn't have been counted were now being counted. So trying to compare stats from before 2003 to stats in the few years following is completely useless and intentionally misleading. In the article you provided, the conservatives were intentionally using this change to the statistics to sell the narrative that there was a huge crime wave.

How so? The stats don't lie, banning guns is not effective, it has happened in the states, Mexico,Nazi Germany, North Korea and so many more examples. "The year they made the change there was a huge spike because crimes that previously wouldn't have been counted were now being counted." How do you know that, reports about the crime rates surging came out in 2006 and 09. Clearly your lying and dont want to admit that Bristains gun ban was bad.

My point is that they aren't even the highest in western Europe, let alone all of Europe as you had claimed. If you are meaning because of the changes to the stats in 2003, then I have already addressed that. If you mean between 2003 and now then the stats do not support your assertion. 
I mean violent crime and yes it is true, the fact of the matter is that Britain is not safe anymore. Terrorism, knife deaths, violent crime and illegal snuffling of guns. Britain is a shit hole, it is now officially Londonstan
#13
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the gun culture does not include criminals who shoot victims, it includes gun owners,airsoft,militas,etc.
You would just prefer not to include them in your definition to serve your own purposes. Anyone who owns a gun is part of the gun culture. That includes mass shooters, criminals etc. 

What statistics, sure it might be down now but it doubled during the 2000's and in the last 100 years the gun crime rate hasn't changed, it proven to be an ineffective gun ban as always. 
I just explained and provided a link that explained that they changed how they counted the crimes in 2003. This cause a big spike because more crimes were being counted, not that more crimes were being committed. So no, there was not a spike in the 2000's. And gun crime has been falling since 2003.  

How so? The stats don't lie
I literally just explained how they methodology for the stats changed. Therefore you cannot compare the stats from the late 90's to after 2003 without being intentionally misleading. You are comparing apples to oranges. 

banning guns is not effective
Canada and most of Europe would disagree with you. 

"The year they made the change there was a huge spike because crimes that previously wouldn't have been counted were now being counted." How do you know that, reports about the crime rates surging came out in 2006 and 09. Clearly your lying and dont want to admit that Bristains gun ban was bad.
I know that because it was in the article I linked. Here is is again.

Please provide those stats. I have looked. here is a link to an article.
Please look at the graph entitled "Gun crime in England and Wales". There has been a rise in the last 2 or 3 years, but they are still way below 2003. There was no spike in 2006 or 2009. So either please provide stats that support your point or stop repeating that talking point. 

I mean violent crime and yes it is true, the fact of the matter is that Britain is not safe anymore. Terrorism, knife deaths, violent crime and illegal snuffling of guns. Britain is a shit hole, it is now officially Londonstan
Their crime rate is way lower than US rate. So the UK is a shithole with a homicide rate of 1.2 but america is a shining beacon of lawfulness with a homicide rate of 5.3? Oh yes, it must really suck to be them with 1/4 the number of homicides. 
Topic's author
#14
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
agree to disagree, this has gone long on enough


#15
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
don't get caught up in the b.s. attempted comparisons with other countries.

the U.S. is unique in so many ways, how it was founded, age, demographics, population etc etc, apples and oranges.

search The ‘Other Country’ Fallacy for further reading.

it's the same old argument "but country X has done Y and it worked" blah blah blah  like that is some sort of argument.

When compared to itself the crime/murder rate isn't going up (and has trended down) yet the number of guns is going up.

If more guns = more murders this shouldn't be so, the rate should be going up drastically, yet it is not.  Must be something other than guns that is the problem.

#16
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
When compared to itself the crime/murder rate isn't going up (and has trended down) yet the number of guns is going up.

If more guns = more murders this shouldn't be so, the rate should be going up drastically, yet it is not.  Must be something other than guns that is the problem.

You've assumed some sort of linear relationship where x amount of increases in guns must necessarily equal some xy increase in gun deaths. It might be the case that the relationship is actually logarithmic, in which case the answer could be that the US has reached a saturation level of guns such that increases in gun ownership no longer results in a meaningful increase in murder rates (or more plainly, everyone who wants a gun to commit crimes already has a gun. Them now having two guns doesn't increase or decrease the likelihood of them committing a crime).


#17
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
I can understand why you'd say that, however I would also ask because the population is increasing (more people) and yet the murder rate is decreasing one would think with more people should mean more unstable murderers right?  And yet that doesn't seem to be the case does it?
everyone who wants a gun to commit crimes already has a gun
I would say that's been true for a very, very long time.  Which more gun control will have NO effect on, not in many decades anyway.

#18
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I would also ask because the population is increasing (more people) and yet the murder rate is decreasing
Where did you get the idea that the murder rate is decreasing? In 2018 it was 5.0. In 2014 it was 4.5. It has dropped .1 per year for the last 2 years. but it is still .5 higher than it was in 2014. 


#19
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I can understand why you'd say that, however I would also ask because the population is increasing (more people) and yet the murder rate is decreasing one would think with more people should mean more unstable murderers right?  And yet that doesn't seem to be the case does it?
Your coyness aside, I'm happy to say that there are many factors involved in murder rates. It's just that while I can readily identify guns as one such factor and propose solutions for that factor, you seem be going more along the lines of "not guns, not guns, please not guns, anything but guns, muh second amendment, fuck you". Which isn't actually helpful. 

I would say that's been true for a very, very long time.  Which more gun control will have NO effect on, not in many decades anyway.
This goes back to the point that HistoryBuff made. Sitting on your hands and ignoring a problem just because you don't like the solution isn't actually a solution to the problem.

Apart from this, each year, a new group of legal adults becomes eligible to purchase guns. If all of that group understood gun safety measures and all of that group were actually screened to not be a psycho, I don't think it's improbable that you'd get results somewhat quickly.

At the very least you probably wouldn't have cases where a retard randomly walks into a walmart just to test his 2a rights because he/she would understand that guns aren't a toy to be used in such a manner and doing so is profoundly retarded.
#20
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
This goes back to the point that HistoryBuff made. Sitting on your hands and ignoring a problem just because you don't like the solution isn't actually a solution to the problem.

when there is only tunnel vision for one "solution" you'll understand my skepticism
How do you plan to get guns out of criminal's hands?  by attrition?
If all of that group understood gun safety measures and all of that group were actually screened to not be a psycho
safety is a great thing, something that could even be offered in schools and or at no cost, yet.....(insert cricket sounds here)

we just minority report people when the come of age?  is that the plan?  or prove yourself before we allow you to have your rights?  I don't see anyway a screening could work in the U.S. sure in some fascist, socialist country, but not in the U.S.
Do you need believe in the 4th amendment?  presumption of innocence?
walks into a walmart 
that was exceedingly stupid, but we have the right to be exceedingly stupid without breaking any actual laws so.....price you pay for freedoms, but I wish people wouldn't do things like that, it's counter productive.

there are illegal drugs which law abiding citizens don't have yet the demand is still filled in various ways including from outside the U.S.  What plans or steps could be taken to ensure this doesn't happen with guns?  Right now there is little to no demand and profit to bring in guns from other countries so it's not so much of a problem, but I think that could change with a ban.  
If we can't stop illegal drugs, convince me guns could be stopped.

We all agree, I think, we don't want guns in the hands of people who would do harm/crime with them.  How do we realistically keep them from the hands of criminals in any meaningful way without turning into a military state.









#21
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
when there is only tunnel vision for one "solution" you'll understand my skepticism
There isn't tunnel vision for one solution. Arguments are predicated on disagreements. If you suggest solutions for gun violence that don't run contrary to the principles of gun control, there's a good chance that I'll agree with you. The issue seems to be that you disagree with me that gun control is a solution for gun violence, which is why seemingly only gun control is ever discussed

How do you plan to get guns out of criminal's hands?  by attrition?
Yep.

safety is a great thing, something that could even be offered in schools and or at no cost, yet.....(insert cricket sounds here)
If you could demonstrate with solid evidence how such programs could be effective without backfiring sure. However inserting more guns into a situation runs contrary to the principal of slowly taking guns out of a system so then it'd be a question of which is the more effective solution

we just minority report people when the come of age?  is that the plan?  or prove yourself before we allow you to have your rights?  I don't see anyway a screening could work in the U.S. sure in some fascist, socialist country, but not in the U.S.
Do you need believe in the 4th amendment?  presumption of innocence?
Why not? Are drivers licenses not a screening for the ability to drive a car? Are pilot licenses not a screening for the ability to pilot an airplane?

there are illegal drugs which law abiding citizens don't have yet the demand is still filled in various ways including from outside the U.S.  What plans or steps could be taken to ensure this doesn't happen with guns?  Right now there is little to no demand and profit to bring in guns from other countries so it's not so much of a problem, but I think that could change with a ban.  
If we can't stop illegal drugs, convince me guns could be stopped.
You don't stop anything at all. The whole point of gun control is minimization not elimination. Obviously you can't stop 20 people who each have parts of an AR-15 shoved up their buttholes from individually arriving on the shores of Florida by rowboat. 

We all agree, I think, we don't want guns in the hands of people who would do harm/crime with them.  How do we realistically keep them from the hands of criminals in any meaningful way without turning into a military state.
To go down that line of reasoning, first you'd have to make a well-reasoned argument that America is likely to turn into a military state in the first place.
#22
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
The issue seems to be that you disagree with me that gun control is a solution for gun violence, which is why seemingly only gun control is ever discussed
it's very possible I confuse you with others but the only arguments I recall are bans or things like registrations (which wouldn't do anything) and or other things that would essentially void or make useless the 2A

If you could demonstrate with solid evidence how such programs could be effective without backfiring sure.
the Boy Scouts have been doing gun safety and education probably since it's inception.  Schools also have done similar.  While my school has hunter safety as an elective it also included archery, boating, farm tractors and trapping.  I took archery again in college and yeah we actually shot targets with arrows.  If we can just save one life by educating kids on safety isn't it worth it?  (see what I did there ;)  )

Are drivers licenses not a screening for the ability to drive a car? Are pilot licenses not a screening for the ability to pilot an airplane?
they are not constitutional rights for starters.  There is no sanity screening required before you get a driver's licence that I know of.

The whole point of gun control is minimization not elimination.
minimize it to what?  what's the acceptable cut off limit?
are there other ways to minimize without additional gun control that haven't been attempted or implemented yet?

#23
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts

the Boy Scouts have been doing gun safety and education probably since it's inception.  Schools also have done similar.  While my school has hunter safety as an elective it also included archery, boating, farm tractors and trapping.  I took archery again in college and yeah we actually shot targets with arrows.  If we can just save one life by educating kids on safety isn't it worth it?  (see what I did there ;)  )
Sure that could be one way to go about it to teach kids gun safety measures. However this doesn't really negate the efficacy of a screening and some sort of a gun license for gun possession

they are not constitutional rights for starters.  There is no sanity screening required before you get a driver's licence that I know of.
Constitutional rights are not unlimited.

You've missed my point about car licenses and pilot licenses. The point is that there are many objects or roles in this world that require a certain screening and/or license due to their potential to cause risk to yourself and/or others. Cars may not require a psychological screening, but they are a good example for the concept of being forced to go through a process of learning in order to acquire a license in order to legally drive.

minimize it to what?  what's the acceptable cut off limit?
How long is a piece of string?

are there other ways to minimize without additional gun control that haven't been attempted or implemented yet?
Probably. If you were to make such suggestions I could certainly discuss them with you. But again, the assertion of the existence of such solutions is not the same as solutions and also they need not be mutually exclusive solutions to gun control
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
Even loaded and with the safety off, a gun is still an inanimate object.

It is the person that lacks control and the weapons effect exacerbates this situation.

It's a simple case of no gun = no mistakes.

And criminals will have easy access to guns if there is no gun control.

Therefore the argument against gun control is clearly not relative to issues such as safety or crime rates or social security.

It's just down to an inherited and perpetually reconditioned culture.


#25
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
However this doesn't really negate the efficacy of a screening and some sort of a gun license for gun possession
how does a license for a gun prevent crime?  

you haven't articulated what this "screening" is

How effective is this screening (whatever that is) 

What would be the criteria for denial because of this screening?


#26
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
how does a license for a gun prevent crime?  

"After reading through 300 different news stories about these discharges one thing has become clear. In all of the articles that we went through these discharges WOULD NOT have happened if those handling the firearms followed proper gun safety protocols."

you haven't articulated what this "screening" is

How effective is this screening (whatever that is) 

What would be the criteria for denial because of this screening?
The basic idea of a screening is to prevent undesirable people from acquiring something. There is no focus on any particular example of screening, only the concept of screening itself
#27
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
a license isn't required to teach someone safety, nor does having a license mean you understand safety

how does a license for a gun prevent crime?  

The basic idea of a screening is to prevent undesirable people from acquiring something.
hhmm I guess so, so like if a certain group commits a disproportionate percentage of murders we should not allow them to have guns because they are undesirable?  People with disabilities because of the reduce physical dexterity?  Women because they are generally more emotional?  You may want to rethink how this could even work at all, talk about a slippery slope.
there are legal ways to make a determination if someone is mentally unable/unfit to own a firearm so I have no idea what more you are asking for.



#28
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
a license isn't required to teach someone safety, nor does having a license mean you understand safety
If there were 100 people who are owners of a degree in biology from an accredited university, and 100 people who are not owners of such a degree, I am going to assume that the degree holders in biology are going to know more about biology than the 100 people who do not, because the degree signifies that the holder has received 3-4 years of specialized instruction and has demonstrated that they are able to express that instruction in tests. It might be the case that one of the degree holders barely graduated and one of the non-degree holders actually has 50 years of field experience in a particular biology field, but I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the degree holders know more about biology in general given a random sample selection.

Same thing for a gun license. If some of the requirements for the gun license include extensive instruction in gun safety, as well as a passing mark in some sort of gun safety test I think it is a pretty fair and reasonable assumption that on average they are going to know more about gun safety than those who have not gone through the instruction and tests required to get the gun license

how does a license for a gun prevent crime?  
Negligent discharge is in some cases a crime

hhmm I guess so, so like if a certain group commits a disproportionate percentage of murders we should not allow them to have guns because they are undesirable?  People with disabilities because of the reduce physical dexterity?  Women because they are generally more emotional?  You may want to rethink how this could even work at all, talk about a slippery slope.
If you think it's a slippery slope, it is up to you to demonstrate that is indeed a likely slippery slope. Personally I was more thinking along the criteria of those that demonstrate a certain percentage of classical psychopathy signs or severe emotional instability. But whatever bizarre scenarios float your boat I guess?

there are legal ways to make a determination if someone is mentally unable/unfit to own a firearm so I have no idea what more you are asking for.
It's about proactive vs reactive methods, in addition to a multi-layered approach.


#29
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
If some of the requirements for the gun license include extensive instruction in gun safety, as well as a passing mark in some sort of gun safety test I think it is a pretty fair and reasonable assumption that on average they are going to know more about gun safety than those who have not gone through the instruction and tests required to get the gun license
you haven't shown how gun safety requires a license, btw you don't need a driver's license to drive on your own property, nor do you need a hunting license.
You could require a gun safety course designed however is best without any need of a license.
safety is important I agree with that and have given ideas how that could easily be accomplished, no license needed.

It's about proactive vs reactive methods, in addition to a multi-layered approach.
sure like the Minority report, we can have Tom Cruise do it.

in 2018 there were over 26 MILLION NICS checks, you propose to do over 26 million mental health assessments per year?  Tell me how that is remotely possible.
Topic's author
#30
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Sure its unique, but it proves a point