US Gun Control (Yes, again).

[Uieurnthlaal]

Numbers don't lie. Words might, but numbers don't.
I have shown you based on widely accepted statistics that developed countries with less guns, practically as a rule, have less murder. You have, as of yet, failed to disprove any of my sourced claims, or sources.

Your sourced claims mention nothing of what your arguing about. You say ''numbers dont lie'' yeah. That absolutely right, and do you know what those numbers say? That the UK's violent crime rate is 3.5 times higher than America's, same as costa rica's nearly non existant gun homicide rate is significantly lower than Venezuela's gun homicide rate.

You can try and sugar coat the facts however you like, the facts still remain the same: UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US. And that gun crime in the US is decreasing despite gun laws being laxed in 2004.

Ooops... I must have forgotten to post this...
Well, that'l explain why your wildly wrong.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Proving causation is physically impossible without doing an experiment on the US itself. So, these statistical methods, with proving correlation for as many indices as possible, and getting rid of outliers, is the best possible method without directly doing an experiment on the US itself. So far, the evidence that I have given seems to indicate that fewer guns, as a rule, correlate with less crime.

Except, of course, in the United States, which despite loosening gun laws and increasing gun ownership, has seen a steady decrease in crime.

I will repeat this prior graph. Note: in 1994, Congress passed a sweeping gun control bill. Crime plummeted even faster. In 2004, the bill expired. Crime increased, and stayed higher than it was prior to the 2004 expiration for over four years, before the now slow decrease of crime that has happened forever managed to bring crime lower.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Reposting this again:
Just to make sure nobody forgets, I'm reposting the statistics.

I believe that gun control is a good idea, since criminals are unlikely to be stopped just by a neighborhood with a high proportion of gun owners. If those neighbors really did try to shoot down the criminal, they would more likely shoot innocent bystanders. Therefore, I believe that taking back most particularly dangerous guns and regulating the purchase and repair of new guns would be most effective at reducing gun-related crime. What do you think?

A woman is walking to her car in a dark, mostly empty parking lot, when a 200-pound man emerges from behind her vehicle, produces a knife, and orders her to get into the back seat. Once she's hidden away from view, he climbs into the car with her and starts tearing at her clothes.

At that moment, I would argue that the woman needs a gun more than any other thing on planet earth. A gun ban would leave her defenseless, raped, and possibly dead.

Let's get a round of applause for public safety, everyone.

Who are the alarmists now? And what about my proof that that won't happen, by showing example of all the developed countries in the world, with intentional homicides on the y-axis, and gun-ownership on the x-axis:
.
Respond to the irrefutable statistics, please. I can only address one sort of crime at a time, so the most obvious choice is intentional homicide rates. I took me long enough to make these graphs and this statistical analysis, so I'll give you this link which will show you that US, UK, and Australia all have the problem at around 30/100 000, and most developed countries have a much lower rate, which conversely also have a much lower gun rate.
Here is a trend line, showing the average linear relation between gun-rates and murder-rates:

Now you might say, while the line does point slightly up, it's not very certain, and what about those three points at the beginning with low gun rates but high murder rates? Those are the Seychelles, Estonia, and Cuba. We can deal with them on a case by case basis: First, the seychelles only recently became a multiparty democracy, and still has some crime remaining from prior days. They are still plagued by a somewhat undemocratic government. Estonia has significant organized crime as a result of problems associated with the previous socialist regime. And Cuba is, well, Cuba. So, I think it's fair to say that those countries have very special histories that give them high levels of crime, so including them would just skew the analysis because of a few outliers. This is commonly done in statistics, in order to account for special cases. How about on the other sides? Outliers that are too low? Well, the majority of them seem to follow a simple line, except for those three outliers, so we can assume that those are the only outliers. Now, if we get rid of them, we get this:
.
A fairly convincing graph, showing that developed countries as a whole, when they have more guns, they have more crime. What's the anti-gun control crowd's response to this?
Sources: Crime, HDI, and Guns.
To account for other violent crimes, I included this:
I can only address one sort of crime at a time, so the most obvious choice is intentional homicide rates. I took me long enough to make these graphs and this statistical analysis, so I'll give you this link which will show you that US, UK, and Australia all have the sexual assault rate at around 30/100 000, and most developed countries have a much lower rate, which conversely also have a much lower gun rate.
I'll add more statistics tomorrow.

[Norjagen]

This is clearly just going back and forth. Let's assume, Uieurnthlaal, that you're correct.

What do you plan to do about it?

I believe that taking back most particularly dangerous guns and regulating the purchase and repair of new guns would be most effective at reducing gun-related crime.

-How do you plan to accomplish the above?

-What guns are the "most particularly dangerous" in your mind?

-There are a large number of people out there who would not, under any circumstances, surrender their arms. How would you assure their compliance whilst remaining not dead?


EDIT: If you're so concerned with your little graphs, edit them into the OP. Don't spam every page of your thread with a repeat post.

[Uieurnthlaal]

This is clearly just going back and forth. Let's assume, Uieurnthlaal, that you're correct.

What do you plan to do about it?

I believe that taking back most particularly dangerous guns and regulating the purchase and repair of new guns would be most effective at reducing gun-related crime.

-How do you plan to accomplish the above?

-What guns are the "most particularly dangerous" in your mind?

-There are a large number of people out there who would not, under any circumstances, surrender their arms. How would you assure their compliance whilst remaining not dead?

EDIT: If you're so concerned with your little graphs, edit them into the OP. Don't spam every page of your thread with a repeat post.

I'm concerned with "little graphs" because people are so happy to ignore them when they're inconvenient, so I'm making sure that they can't ignore them.

Next, we would mandate that everyone return their guns to the government with just compensation, within, say, a few months. We will make exceptions for family history items, or historical items, provided that they are deactivated. Then, if people wanted to get a gun, they would have to get the necessary license, including an extensive background check. If this proves to much, we can make an exception for, say, non-automatic low-power guns. To enforce this, with evidence, we could take legal action, for example, maybe a search appropriated by the constitution, similar to searches for any other illegal substances or devices. If people protest and won't give up their gun, than we'll have to take further legal action, like a fine. And, according to my graphs that everyone's either dismissing without paying attention to them or just ignoring altogether, those sort of actions to reduce guns would work.

[Chernoslavia]

Your sourced claims mention nothing of what your arguing about. You say ''numbers dont lie'' yeah. That absolutely right, and do you know what those numbers say? That the UK's violent crime rate is 3.5 times higher than America's, same as costa rica's nearly non existant gun homicide rate is significantly lower than Venezuela's gun homicide rate.

You can try and sugar coat the facts however you like, the facts still remain the same: UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US. And that gun crime in the US is decreasing despite gun laws being laxed in 2004.

Ooops... I must have forgotten to post this...
Well, that'l explain why your wildly wrong.

And again your very own source disproves your own arguement.

Yes, its ture that my source does mention only England and Wales which are the top 2 countries with the most violent crime in the UK.

Now add in Northern Ireland and Scotland which both have the most lax gun laws and have slighly less violent crime rate, and you get the rating 1,000.0 violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants. So like I said, UK still has a higher violent crime rate and how a violent crime is described is irrelevent as both nations still regard them ass violent crimes. And to top it all up, your source is from a usually anti-gun news article, while my sources come from FBI and MI5 statistics both having no political bias in them.

But please do go on, I can use the laugh.

[Norjagen]

...If people protest and won't give up their gun, than we'll have to take further legal action, like a fine....

I don't think you caught the operative words in the question.

How do you plan to force people into compliance without getting dead?
If people protest and won't give up their guns during a raid by law enforcement, you're not looking at fines for possession. You're looking at bodies on both sides. How are you going to sell this plan to the officers that are going to have to actually kick in doors and shoot it out with non-compliers? "Oh, by the way, you're going to be involved in a shootout with a barricaded suspect this.. looks like Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday night."

[Chernoslavia]

...If people protest and won't give up their gun, than we'll have to take further legal action, like a fine....

I don't think you caught the operative words in the question.

How do you plan to force people into compliance without getting dead?
If people protest and won't give up their guns during a raid by law enforcement, you're not looking at fines for possession. You're looking at bodies on both sides. How are you going to sell this plan to the officers that are going to have to actually kick in doors and shoot it out with non-compliers? "Oh, by the way, you're going to be involved in a shootout with a barricaded suspect this.. looks like Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday night."

Here he is talking about democracy and non-democracy, developed and underdeveloped, and look what he's suggesting. Tyranny at its best.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Ooops... I must have forgotten to post this...
Well, that'l explain why your wildly wrong.

And again your very own source disproves your own arguement.

Yes, its ture that my source does mention only England and Wales which are the top 2 countries with the most violent crime in the UK.

Now add in Northern Ireland and Scotland which both have the most lax gun laws and have slighly less violent crime rate, and you get the rating 1,000.0 violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants. So like I said, UK still has a higher violent crime rate and how a violent crime is described is irrelevent as both nations still regard them ass violent crimes. And to top it all up, your source is from a usually anti-gun news article, while my sources come from FBI and MI5 statistics both having no political bias in them.

But please do go on, I can use the laugh.

Sure, any "liberal" "hippy" fact-checking source that actually believes stuff like global warming and evolution is not worth listening to, therefore everything it says is wrong.
And about countries other than England and Wales, isolated cases prove nothing. Only trends can be considered true, which is why I created a chart of all developed countries. About Scotland and Northern Ireland, I know that they have lower crime rates. After all, I spend half an hour poring over the data to match the countries and put it into a graph. However, neither the article I linked to or the source for the graph says anything about gun ownership in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so I don't know what you're talking about.
By the way, how a violent crime is described is completely relevant to comparisons. If you want direct sources, than I'll give you direct sources:

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

(Source)

[UK] Violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery. Violence against the person contains the full spectrum of assaults, from pushing and shoving (no physical harm) to murder. Important measure of local activity and a source of operational information to help identify and address local crime problems.

(Source)
Clearly, the British definition of "violent crime" is more general than the American definition. Are you still unable to see it? Let me point out the difference.
In the US, "violent crime" consists of only four different offenses, listed above: forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and murder.
In the UK, "violent crime" consists of the full spectrum of assaults, all the way from pushing and shoving (no physical harm) to murder.

[Uieurnthlaal]

...If people protest and won't give up their gun, than we'll have to take further legal action, like a fine....

I don't think you caught the operative words in the question.

How do you plan to force people into compliance without getting dead?
If people protest and won't give up their guns during a raid by law enforcement, you're not looking at fines for possession. You're looking at bodies on both sides. How are you going to sell this plan to the officers that are going to have to actually kick in doors and shoot it out with non-compliers? "Oh, by the way, you're going to be involved in a shootout with a barricaded suspect this.. looks like Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday night."

Well then arrest every single one of the shooters and put them in jail for shooting a police officer. If people can be thrown into jail for shooting police officers during normal circumstances, I see no reason why not to extend that then. There might be talk about armed rebellion this, armed rebellion that, but I doubt any significant amount of people would want to participate in an armed shooting, especially if fighting with the respected police officers broke out.

[Kassaran]

Hello my fellow forum mates,
Quick question, who here is actually American and is in danger of having their Constitutional Right's violated by this possible banning of all firearms? Just curious. Anyways, I know that many here are either for banning ALL guns, or against banning the guns, but this does not answer the problem of what do we do about skyrocketing crime rates here in the great ole' U-S--of-A? I propose that first off, we either utilize and fund a massive federal police force (which isn't going to help lower anyone's taxes) or take other more authoritarian measures in bringing this country back to order. Second, to address the gun issue, require all CITIZENS of this great nation to take a crash course in handling AND maintaining a firearm, and be required to either pay a local (city-based) protection tax to fund a better police force, or to buy and maintain a sidearm. I also propose that higher caliber guns be monitored more closely, that all owner's of firearms be required to pass a psych test to ensure mental stability (we don't want anymore bozos wielding firearms in small urban communities now do we?) and that owners MUST renew their gun licenses and psych tests yearly to ensure proper safety measures are taken. Now, I see that part of this forum is again looking at higher crime rates being directly proportionate to the higher gun ownership, while that might be a part of the case, I wish to submit that in fact it is rather due to poor monitoring of the registering and selling of firearms to mentally handicapped, mentally unstable, emotionally unstable, or just plain stupid individuals. I thus wish to put forth an idea that all persons of such handicaps as aforementioned, be closely monitored, regularly checked up upon, and registered with local, state, and federal authorities in a directory. Look at it this way, we could continue to become more increasingly liberal and let people (who don't necessarily know how to make the best decisions in most cases, especially looking at the last election, just kidding) live their lives free of federal scrutiny, OR we can take charge by utilizing our government to the fullest of its capabilities by forcing it to lower the wages of the so-called "civil servants" we have in control over us (which should not be the case since they speak FOR the people and not for themselves), change the education systems here in the U.S. to allow for a more specialized citizen and NOT a well-rounded individual (seeing as how many children lose interest in school not doing what they WANT to do with their lives, and this DOESN'T include video-games) in order to allow for more higher quality work, companies that outsource should be taxed heavily per each foreign employee they hire and that all their goods should be put under a tariff if built in a foreign country to eventually force companies to in source jobs once again, get people off the streets and into a better place. How does any of that help lower crime rates? Would you, someone reasonable with a job and something to lose, be more likely then to put yourself in jeopardy of losing such a gain? No, you wouldn't (at least not most people I know)! Now for more extreme measures that I feel should be taken (that not necessarily anyone else would prefer to have happen) would be that association with ANY gangs through social interactions on a common (weekly) basis that has not lead to an anti-gang mentality, should be illegal, businesses should NOT allow service to any members of gangs, and ALL confirmed or incarcerated gang members be treated and dealt with as traitors to the country. Gangs in my opinion, as well as any organized crime, are treasonous by nature. They focus on gaining power (which belongs to the authorities, local and federal) through illegal means (violence and illegal merchandising), illegally claiming federal lands (by tagging and leaving other identifiers that submit the idea of the presence of a gang and thus a claim to that land which they do not own and thus are trying to steal from the U.S. which is illegal and treasonous in my book and punishable by death), and regularly assault U.S. citizens for no LEGAL, constitutionally, and/or"morally just" means (which is assault and terrorism which is once again treason and punishable therefore by death). I have lost many good friends to gang violence so I house a bitter resentment of them. Each gang in the U.S. not dealt with by our military is a sign of our losing our war on terrorism since that is exactly what gangs are, terrorist cells. Now I understand I am young and politically immature and what I say may hold no real meat in this forum or be of any common sense, so forgive me for rambling on, but realize this; you speak of gun control when the LAPD is outnumbered and outgunned on a landslide basis and 80% of all gun related homicides are gang related. Does this make a hole in anyone's arguments in my proposal for harsher laws outlawing ALL gang activities in the U.S. leading to lower crime rates? Link for the 80% thing, I don't remember where i read the LAPD statistics thing though and thus you have to look it up yourself, sorry.
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/cap ... ective.htm
Sincerely,
The Prime Minister of the Armed Republic of Kassaran
Jonah Samuel Mackenzie

[Norjagen]

I don't think you caught the operative words in the question.

How do you plan to force people into compliance without getting dead?
If people protest and won't give up their guns during a raid by law enforcement, you're not looking at fines for possession. You're looking at bodies on both sides. How are you going to sell this plan to the officers that are going to have to actually kick in doors and shoot it out with non-compliers? "Oh, by the way, you're going to be involved in a shootout with a barricaded suspect this.. looks like Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday night."

Well then arrest every single one of the shooters and put them in jail for shooting a police officer. There might be talk about armed rebellion this, armed rebellion that, but I doubt any significant amount of people would want to participate in an armed shooting, especially if fighting with the respected police officers broke out.

And just how many people are going to have to end up dead or in prison in order to make your collectivist dreams come true?

Progressive mindset at it's finest: "Sometimes -you- have to die or rot in prison for something -I- believe in."

[Uieurnthlaal]

Well then arrest every single one of the shooters and put them in jail for shooting a police officer. There might be talk about armed rebellion this, armed rebellion that, but I doubt any significant amount of people would want to participate in an armed shooting, especially if fighting with the respected police officers broke out.

And just how many people are going to have to end up dead or in prison in order to make your collectivist dreams come true?

Progressive mindset at it's finest: "Sometimes -you- have to die or rot in prison for something -I- believe in."

How many people do you know that would be willing to shoot the police in point blank range for taking their guns? How many, honestly, would be willing to do that? Those that would are criminals in any circumstance.
Don't think so, than how about this? If a police comes into your house with a warrant under suspicious that you have an illegal bomb in your house, do you think shooting the policeman in the chest is not an action worthy of jail time?

[Uieurnthlaal]

Hello my fellow forum mates,
Quick question, who here is actually American and is in danger of having their Constitutional Right's violated by this possible banning of all firearms? Just curious. Anyways, I know that many here are either for banning ALL guns, or against banning the guns, but this does not answer the problem of what do we do about skyrocketing crime rates here in the great ole' U-S--of-A? I propose that first off, we either utilize and fund a massive federal police force (which isn't going to help lower anyone's taxes) or take other more authoritarian measures in bringing this country back to order. Second, to address the gun issue, require all CITIZENS of this great nation to take a crash course in handling AND maintaining a firearm, and be required to either pay a local (city-based) protection tax to fund a better police force, or to buy and maintain a sidearm. I also propose that higher caliber guns be monitored more closely, that all owner's of firearms be required to pass a psych test to ensure mental stability (we don't want anymore bozos wielding firearms in small urban communities now do we?) and that owners MUST renew their gun licenses and psych tests yearly to ensure proper safety measures are taken. Now, I see that part of this forum is again looking at higher crime rates being directly proportionate to the higher gun ownership, while that might be a part of the case, I wish to submit that in fact it is rather due to poor monitoring of the registering and selling of firearms to mentally handicapped, mentally unstable, emotionally unstable, or just plain stupid individuals. I thus wish to put forth an idea that all persons of such handicaps as aforementioned, be closely monitored, regularly checked up upon, and registered with local, state, and federal authorities in a directory. Look at it this way, we could continue to become more increasingly liberal and let people (who don't necessarily know how to make the best decisions in most cases, especially looking at the last election, just kidding) live their lives free of federal scrutiny, OR we can take charge by utilizing our government to the fullest of its capabilities by forcing it to lower the wages of the so-called "civil servants" we have in control over us (which should not be the case since they speak FOR the people and not for themselves), change the education systems here in the U.S. to allow for a more specialized citizen and NOT a well-rounded individual (seeing as how many children lose interest in school not doing what they WANT to do with their lives, and this DOESN'T include video-games) in order to allow for more higher quality work, companies that outsource should be taxed heavily per each foreign employee they hire and that all their goods should be put under a tariff if built in a foreign country to eventually force companies to in source jobs once again, get people off the streets and into a better place. How does any of that help lower crime rates? Would you, someone reasonable with a job and something to lose, be more likely then to put yourself in jeopardy of losing such a gain? No, you wouldn't (at least not most people I know)! Now for more extreme measures that I feel should be taken (that not necessarily anyone else would prefer to have happen) would be that association with ANY gangs through social interactions on a common (weekly) basis that has not lead to an anti-gang mentality, should be illegal, businesses should NOT allow service to any members of gangs, and ALL confirmed or incarcerated gang members be treated and dealt with as traitors to the country. Gangs in my opinion, as well as any organized crime, are treasonous by nature. They focus on gaining power (which belongs to the authorities, local and federal) through illegal means (violence and illegal merchandising), illegally claiming federal lands (by tagging and leaving other identifiers that submit the idea of the presence of a gang and thus a claim to that land which they do not own and thus are trying to steal from the U.S. which is illegal and treasonous in my book and punishable by death), and regularly assault U.S. citizens for no LEGAL, constitutionally, and/or"morally just" means (which is assault and terrorism which is once again treason and punishable therefore by death). I have lost many good friends to gang violence so I house a bitter resentment of them. Each gang in the U.S. not dealt with by our military is a sign of our losing our war on terrorism since that is exactly what gangs are, terrorist cells. Now I understand I am young and politically immature and what I say may hold no real meat in this forum or be of any common sense, so forgive me for rambling on, but realize this; you speak of gun control when the LAPD is outnumbered and outgunned on a landslide basis and 80% of all gun related homicides are gang related. Does this make a hole in anyone's arguments in my proposal for harsher laws outlawing ALL gang activities in the U.S. leading to lower crime rates? Link for the 80% thing, I don't remember where i read the LAPD statistics thing though and thus you have to look it up yourself, sorry.
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/cap ... ective.htm
Sincerely,
The Prime Minister of the Armed Republic of Kassaran
Jonah Samuel Mackenzie

Paragraphs were invented for a reason, you know.
Anyway, I checked your link, which threw around several ideas, most notably the comparison between Japan and the US. Even ignoring the contradiction about how Japan is completely different yet completely applicable, I would like to point out that once is not a trend. Only trends are trends, which is why I made that graph.
Tomorrow, I'll add statistics about suicide rates.

[Chernoslavia]

And again your very own source disproves your own arguement.

Yes, its ture that my source does mention only England and Wales which are the top 2 countries with the most violent crime in the UK.

Now add in Northern Ireland and Scotland which both have the most lax gun laws and have slighly less violent crime rate, and you get the rating 1,000.0 violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants. So like I said, UK still has a higher violent crime rate and how a violent crime is described is irrelevent as both nations still regard them ass violent crimes. And to top it all up, your source is from a usually anti-gun news article, while my sources come from FBI and MI5 statistics both having no political bias in them.

But please do go on, I can use the laugh.

Sure, any "liberal" "hippy" fact-checking source that actually believes stuff like global warming and evolution is not worth listening to, therefore everything it says is wrong.
By the way, how a violent crime is described is completely relevant to comparisons. If you want direct sources, than I'll give you direct sources:

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

(Source)

[UK] Violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery. Violence against the person contains the full spectrum of assaults, from pushing and shoving (no physical harm) to murder. Important measure of local activity and a source of operational information to help identify and address local crime problems.

(Source)
Clearly, the British definition of "violent crime" is more general than the American definition. Are you still unable to see it? Let me point out the difference.
In the US, "violent crime" consists of only four different offenses, listed above: forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and murder.
In the UK, "violent crime" consists of the full spectrum of assaults, all the way from pushing and shoving (no physical harm) to murder.

Aggravated assault:

1. An intent to create an apprehension in another person.
2. An act that would likely result in the application of force with a deadly weapon or with some other means of force likely to cause serious bodily injury.
3. The present ability to cause the application of force that would cause serious bodily injury.

So according to 1. verbally threatening someone is enough to be charged with aggravated assault.

[Norjagen]

And just how many people are going to have to end up dead or in prison in order to make your collectivist dreams come true?

Progressive mindset at it's finest: "Sometimes -you- have to die or rot in prison for something -I- believe in."

How many people do you know that would be willing to shoot the police in point blank range for taking their guns? How many, honestly, would be willing to do that? Those that would are criminals in any circumstance.
Don't think so, than how about this? If a police comes into your house with a warrant under suspicious that you have an illegal bomb in your house, do you think shooting the policeman in the chest is not an action worthy of jail time?

Standing estimates hover at about 3% of the population, or just shy of 10 million people. And those are the ones who are looking at fighting it out to the death, rather than going to jail or being disarmed.

[Uieurnthlaal]

And again your very own source disproves your own arguement.

Yes, its ture that my source does mention only England and Wales which are the top 2 countries with the most violent crime in the UK.

Now add in Northern Ireland and Scotland which both have the most lax gun laws and have slighly less violent crime rate, and you get the rating 1,000.0 violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants. So like I said, UK still has a higher violent crime rate and how a violent crime is described is irrelevent as both nations still regard them ass violent crimes. And to top it all up, your source is from a usually anti-gun news article, while my sources come from FBI and MI5 statistics both having no political bias in them.

But please do go on, I can use the laugh.

Sure, any "liberal" "hippy" fact-checking source that actually believes stuff like global warming and evolution is not worth listening to, therefore everything it says is wrong.
And about countries other than England and Wales, isolated cases prove nothing. Only trends can be considered true, which is why I created a chart of all developed countries. About Scotland and Northern Ireland, I know that they have lower crime rates. After all, I spend half an hour poring over the data to match the countries and put it into a graph. However, neither the article I linked to or the source for the graph says anything about gun ownership in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so I don't know what you're talking about.
By the way, how a violent crime is described is completely relevant to comparisons. If you want direct sources, than I'll give you direct sources:

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

(Source)

[UK] Violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery. Violence against the person contains the full spectrum of assaults, from pushing and shoving (no physical harm) to murder. Important measure of local activity and a source of operational information to help identify and address local crime problems.

(Source)
Clearly, the British definition of "violent crime" is more general than the American definition. Are you still unable to see it? Let me point out the difference.
In the US, "violent crime" consists of only four different offenses, listed above: forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and murder.
In the UK, "violent crime" consists of the full spectrum of assaults, all the way from pushing and shoving (no physical harm) to murder.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery.

Source.
This couldn't be any simpler. How on earth are you unable to understand this?

[Uieurnthlaal]

How many people do you know that would be willing to shoot the police in point blank range for taking their guns? How many, honestly, would be willing to do that? Those that would are criminals in any circumstance.
Don't think so, than how about this? If a police comes into your house with a warrant under suspicious that you have an illegal bomb in your house, do you think shooting the policeman in the chest is not an action worthy of jail time?

Standing estimates hover at about 3% of the population, or just shy of 10 million people. And those are the ones who are looking at fighting it out to the death, rather than going to jail or being disarmed.

Source? And how many of them do you think would really be willing to fight to the death in reality, not just in words?

[Chernoslavia]

And just how many people are going to have to end up dead or in prison in order to make your collectivist dreams come true?

Progressive mindset at it's finest: "Sometimes -you- have to die or rot in prison for something -I- believe in."

How many people do you know that would be willing to shoot the police in point blank range for taking their guns? How many, honestly, would be willing to do that? Those that would are criminals in any circumstance.
Don't think so, than how about this? If a police comes into your house with a warrant under suspicious that you have an illegal bomb in your house, do you think shooting the policeman in the chest is not an action worthy of jail time?

If the police points guns at us, we'll point our guns back at them. If police shoot first, we will shoot back. Its justified self-defense. So if the government tries to take them by force the most practical way so far is to defeat us first, so thanks to your actions you have provoked a deadly battle that would result in fatal casualties on both sides. How progressive!

[Uieurnthlaal]

How many people do you know that would be willing to shoot the police in point blank range for taking their guns? How many, honestly, would be willing to do that? Those that would are criminals in any circumstance.
Don't think so, than how about this? If a police comes into your house with a warrant under suspicious that you have an illegal bomb in your house, do you think shooting the policeman in the chest is not an action worthy of jail time?

If the police points guns at us, we'll point our guns back at them. If police shoot first, we will shoot back. Its justified self-defense. So if the government tries to take them by force the most practical way so far is to defeat us first, so thanks to your actions you have provoked a deadly battle that would result in fatal casualties on both sides. How progressive!

Except that that's not what would happen, except in an ultraconservative's crazed imagination. What would happen would be that the policeman asks for the guns, if they deny it, then they would use their warrant, and find the gun. If the person refuses to give the gun, then the policeman would inform the person that legal action will be taken. A heavy fine, for example.

[Edlichbury]

How many people do you know that would be willing to shoot the police in point blank range for taking their guns? How many, honestly, would be willing to do that? Those that would are criminals in any circumstance.
Don't think so, than how about this? If a police comes into your house with a warrant under suspicious that you have an illegal bomb in your house, do you think shooting the policeman in the chest is not an action worthy of jail time?

If the police points guns at us, we'll point our guns back at them. If police shoot first, we will shoot back. Its justified self-defense. So if the government tries to take them by force the most practical way so far is to defeat us first, so thanks to your actions you have provoked a deadly battle that would result in fatal casualties on both sides. How progressive!

Yes, it's our fault you won't follow the law.

[Chernoslavia]

If the police points guns at us, we'll point our guns back at them. If police shoot first, we will shoot back. Its justified self-defense. So if the government tries to take them by force the most practical way so far is to defeat us first, so thanks to your actions you have provoked a deadly battle that would result in fatal casualties on both sides. How progressive!

Yes, it's our fault you won't follow the law.

Oh im sorry... Im breaking the law? So if the government does it then its okay. Is that what your saying?

[Uieurnthlaal]

If the police points guns at us, we'll point our guns back at them. If police shoot first, we will shoot back. Its justified self-defense. So if the government tries to take them by force the most practical way so far is to defeat us first, so thanks to your actions you have provoked a deadly battle that would result in fatal casualties on both sides. How progressive!

Yes, it's our fault you won't follow the law.

Can you take over for me, then? I've created several graphs, and even more statistics, and even more sources, which all prove that gun control does work, and which are all being ignored, similar to the behavior described by Lord et. al. in his paper about how the intake of information to the human brain is highly determined by previous memories, to the point where people only see exactly what they want to see, in an extreme confirmation bias. Here's the link.

[Norjagen]

If the police points guns at us, we'll point our guns back at them. If police shoot first, we will shoot back. Its justified self-defense. So if the government tries to take them by force the most practical way so far is to defeat us first, so thanks to your actions you have provoked a deadly battle that would result in fatal casualties on both sides. How progressive!

Yes, it's our fault you won't follow the law.

No, it's your fault YOU won't follow the law. If you were to pass a law banning firearm ownership in the united states, you would be in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Therefore, the restriction is an illegal law.

intake of information to the human brain is highly determined by previous memories, to the point where people only see exactly what they want to see.

Well if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black?

[Edlichbury]

Yes, it's our fault you won't follow the law.

Oh im sorry... Im breaking the law? So if the government does it then its okay. Is that what your saying?

If you break a government law, you are at fault. You do not get to blame others for your actions, even when justified. So if you decide to murder government officials as they attempt to enforce the law, you are in the wrong.