NationStates

If the United States would take an example from the rest of the developed world in regard to gun laws, the ridiculously high gun murder rate in the US would plummet.

Australasia wrote:If the United States would take an example from the rest of the developed world in regard to gun laws, the ridiculously high gun murder rate in the US would plummet.

Maybe it would.
However, most of the weapons that normally catch the "Assault Weapon" flak, rifles and shotguns, account for pitiful levels of gun violence.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Australasia wrote:If the United States would take an example from the rest of the developed world in regard to gun laws, the ridiculously high gun murder rate in the US would plummet.

Maybe it would.
However, most of the weapons that normally catch the "Assault Weapon" flak, rifles and shotguns, account for pitiful levels of gun violence.

Not, maybe. It would.

Take the Australian example for one.

Australasia wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Maybe it would.
However, most of the weapons that normally catch the "Assault Weapon" flak, rifles and shotguns, account for pitiful levels of gun violence.

Not, maybe. It would.

Take the Australian example for one.

In order for it to work, you've got to go and confiscated more firearms than there are people in the US.
There is a worryingly large number of people in the US who would literally fight to the death to prevent this happening.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were horrific enough as singular events.

Australasia wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Maybe it would.
However, most of the weapons that normally catch the "Assault Weapon" flak, rifles and shotguns, account for pitiful levels of gun violence.

Not, maybe. It would.

Take the Australian example for one.

Does Australia have nearly as many high density population centers? Does Australia live next door to the cartel capital of the world? Does Australia have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world?

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Australasia wrote:
Not, maybe. It would.

Take the Australian example for one.

Does Australia have nearly as many high density population centers? Does Australia live next door to the cartel capital of the world? Does Australia have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world?

Yeah, that's just one example of how to deal with it. Every other developed country in the world has similar gun laws (and similarly low gun murder rates) - the United States should follow the example of the rest of the developed world.

Australasia wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Does Australia have nearly as many high density population centers? Does Australia live next door to the cartel capital of the world? Does Australia have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world?

Yeah, that's just one example of how to deal with it. Every other developed country in the world has similar gun laws (and similarly low gun murder rates) - the United States should follow the example of the rest of the developed world.

Oh yes, here in a country where 1/12 people are the subject of any crime should follow the legislation of Britain where 1/2 of the population is subject to a violent crime in there lifetime, or australia where 2/3's of the population is subject to a crime in there lifetime.

We may have more gun crime because of more guns, but thats simply a given, we still have less violent crime/homicides/and crimes than any other western country.

Personal Defense Force wrote:

Australasia wrote:
Yeah, that's just one example of how to deal with it. Every other developed country in the world has similar gun laws (and similarly low gun murder rates) - the United States should follow the example of the rest of the developed world.

Oh yes, here in a country where 1/12 people are the subject of any crime should follow the legislation of Britain where 1/2 of the population is subject to a violent crime in there lifetime, or australia where 2/3's of the population is subject to a crime in there lifetime.

We may have more gun crime because of more guns, but thats simply a given, we still have less violent crime/homicides/and crimes than any other western country.

Yeah, no:


Also: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008009/article/10671-eng.htm (there's a relevant graph on this page)

Australasia wrote:

Personal Defense Force wrote:
Oh yes, here in a country where 1/12 people are the subject of any crime should follow the legislation of Britain where 1/2 of the population is subject to a violent crime in there lifetime, or australia where 2/3's of the population is subject to a crime in there lifetime.

We may have more gun crime because of more guns, but thats simply a given, we still have less violent crime/homicides/and crimes than any other western country.

Yeah, no:


Also: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008009/article/10671-eng.htm (there's a relevant graph on this page)

You will note that he said violent crimes. Of which murder is one, but not the only. A couple of pages ago it was shown that the UK has roughly 2 times the amount of violent crimes, meaning assault and violent rape. The UK also has higher burglary and car theft. I don't have figures for Australia off the top of my head.

As a side note getting rid of rifles makes little sense because they represent less than 500 homicides a year. As has been mentioned, pools kill more than that, and there are a lot less pools.

Australasia wrote:

Personal Defense Force wrote:
Oh yes, here in a country where 1/12 people are the subject of any crime should follow the legislation of Britain where 1/2 of the population is subject to a violent crime in there lifetime, or australia where 2/3's of the population is subject to a crime in there lifetime.

We may have more gun crime because of more guns, but thats simply a given, we still have less violent crime/homicides/and crimes than any other western country.

Yeah, no:


Also: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008009/article/10671-eng.htm (there's a relevant graph on this page)

Whats your source telling you that gun ownership and the US crime rate are directly linked, as you have been claiming? Obviously, high gun ownership means more gun crime, but, as we've seen countless times in this thread alone, gun laws have negligible effect on violent crime, and often have inverse statistical relationships.

Kernen wrote:

Australasia wrote:
Yeah, no:
(Image)

Also: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008009/article/10671-eng.htm (there's a relevant graph on this page)

Whats your source telling you that gun ownership and the US crime rate are directly linked, as you have been claiming? Obviously, high gun ownership means more gun crime, but, as we've seen countless times in this thread alone, gun laws have negligible effect on violent crime, and often have inverse statistical relationships.

Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

Immoren wrote:'Tis just daft.

This

Australasia wrote:

Kernen wrote:
Whats your source telling you that gun ownership and the US crime rate are directly linked, as you have been claiming? Obviously, high gun ownership means more gun crime, but, as we've seen countless times in this thread alone, gun laws have negligible effect on violent crime, and often have inverse statistical relationships.

Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

That's gun homicide and gun homicide alone, meant to be a misleading statistic when considering total crime rates.. How about a statistic that doesn't ignore the rest of the violent crimes committed? I have a hard time accepting that somewhere is safer just because guns aren't used in the criminal enterprises.

3 out of 100,000 sounds better to me then what we came up with for the UK"s rate of all violent crime vs the US's rate of all violent crime. I'll take 100,000:3 odds and keep my pistol, thanks.

Norjagen wrote:The fact that the entire country seems to be becoming safer, with the exception of those big cities, indicates a problem specific to those areas. A combination of poverty, poor education, widespread, subsidized, even encouraged unemployment, as well as drug problems and gang activity have made veritable war zones out of certain cities; or, more specifically, individual neighborhoods or regions within those cities.

the big cities have actually gotten safer from the peak of our lead-poisoned crime wave far faster than the burbs and rural areas. still less safe, but increasingly close to them today.

Norjagen wrote:Gun control, more than anything else, is a means of claiming to "do something" about a cultural problem, without offending the people who make up that culture. Because "get your shit together, stop killing each other, and do something productive with your time" is racist or something like that.

or it could be that since changing people is hard and we know that reducing access to guns works (and seriously, we know that very solidly), we should do the easier thing. because solving the problem is better than wishing for a pony.

Australasia wrote:If the United States would take an example from the rest of the developed world in regard to gun laws, the ridiculously high gun murder rate in the US would plummet.

Wrong.

The US murder rate is the result of social and economic divides in the country, a unaimed and brutal drug war which fuels criminal activity, and a tendency to turn nonviolent first-time offenders into career felons.

Free Soviets wrote:

Norjagen wrote:The fact that the entire country seems to be becoming safer, with the exception of those big cities, indicates a problem specific to those areas. A combination of poverty, poor education, widespread, subsidized, even encouraged unemployment, as well as drug problems and gang activity have made veritable war zones out of certain cities; or, more specifically, individual neighborhoods or regions within those cities.

the big cities have actually gotten safer from the peak of our lead-poisoned crime wave far faster than the burbs and rural areas. still less safe, but increasingly close to them today.

Norjagen wrote:Gun control, more than anything else, is a means of claiming to "do something" about a cultural problem, without offending the people who make up that culture. Because "get your shit together, stop killing each other, and do something productive with your time" is racist or something like that.

or it could be that since changing people is hard and we know that reducing access to guns works (and seriously, we know that very solidly), we should do the easier thing. because solving the problem is better than wishing for a pony.

Cities: 1700 --> 700 = about 59% decrease.
Rural: 1000 ---> 500 = about 50% decrease.

Methinks that isn't much of a difference.

Uieurnthlaal wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:not i, kiddo. you'll note i explicitly agreed that gun violence is down. i even mentioned the actual cause of that interesting turn of events.

i think its bad because it objectively is, when compared to other countries on a similar level - and even compared to our rather violent cousins back in england, let alone the rest of the english-speaking world. the difference in rates between here and the rest of the developed world should shock the conscience of anyone with an ounce of humanity. it can't be handwaved away.

You clearly have never been to England. There is literally no gun violence in England. None. That's not to say that there's no murders, sure there are, but a whole lot less, even accounting for England's smaller population.
That's because, guess what: it's a whole lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

i was agreeing with that statement, too. but england actually is about as violent as the states (though the stats put out by the daily fail awhile back saying they are way more violent than the US fucked up by not noticing that 'violent crimes' are defined differently). and that makes them an interesting test case.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:the big cities have actually gotten safer from the peak of our lead-poisoned crime wave far faster than the burbs and rural areas. still less safe, but increasingly close to them today.

(Image)

Cities: 1700 --> 700 = about 59% decrease.
Rural: 1000 ---> 500 = about 50% decrease.

Methinks that isn't much of a difference.

meh. sounds like a difference in subjective ranking. the thing to notice, though, is that instead of the difference being 40% between them, it is now half that. in fact, the big cities are now safer than the small ones were when the small ones were the 'safe' places when i was growing up.

Uieurnthlaal wrote:You clearly have never been to England. There is literally no gun violence in England. None.

*cough*
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime
"Fourteen years after Dunblane, the mass killings in Cumbria carried out by another lone gunman, taxi driver Derrick Bird, once again provoked shock, horror and disbelief across the UK. Twelve people were shot dead on 2nd June, 2010, before the perpetrator, another licensed gun owner, turned the gun on himself. The Home Secretary acknowledged that the shootings would prompt further debate on Britain's gun laws."
"Provisional figures show that 6,285 firearm offences were recorded by the police in the year to September 2011"
"In England and Wales firearms were reportedly used in 11,227 offences"

Also on the page:
"The Firearms Amendment of 1997 completely banned handguns for private ownership."
"In England and Wales handguns were the most commonly used firearm, with the weapon accounting for 44% of non-air weapon firearm offences recorded."

Free Soviets wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:Cities: 1700 --> 700 = about 59% decrease.
Rural: 1000 ---> 500 = about 50% decrease.

Methinks that isn't much of a difference.

meh. sounds like a difference in subjective ranking. the thing to notice, though, is that instead of the difference being 40% between them, it is now half that. in fact, the big cities are now safer than the small ones were when the small ones were the 'safe' places when i was growing up.

...
And?
I mean, yes, if we look back twenty years then you're entirely correct, but why would we do that? Small ones are still safer than big cities, and the decrease in crime has affected both to a degree that is just barely discernible as different.
Why compare the big cities of today to the small ones of the early 90s?

Occupied Deutschland wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:meh. sounds like a difference in subjective ranking. the thing to notice, though, is that instead of the difference being 40% between them, it is now half that. in fact, the big cities are now safer than the small ones were when the small ones were the 'safe' places when i was growing up.

...
And?
I mean, yes, if we look back twenty years then you're entirely correct, but why would we do that? Small ones are still safer than big cities, and the decrease in crime has affected both to a degree that is just barely discernible as different.
Why compare the big cities of today to the small ones of the early 90s?

because i was responding to somebody who claimed that "the entire country seems to be becoming safer, with the exception of those big cities"?

Rawrckia wrote:The United States borders Canada and Mexico, both of which have lots of guns for sale, on the black market or otherwise (Mexico actually doesn't allow guns for its citizens iirc but the cartels are extremely powerful right now). It's too easy to get them in and out of the country.

mostly out - the cartels get their weapons in the US. restricting access works. the problem is when the neighbors don't.
we are the bad neighbor here.

Free Soviets wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:...
And?
I mean, yes, if we look back twenty years then you're entirely correct, but why would we do that? Small ones are still safer than big cities, and the decrease in crime has affected both to a degree that is just barely discernible as different.
Why compare the big cities of today to the small ones of the early 90s?

because i was responding to somebody who claimed that "the entire country seems to be becoming safer, with the exception of those big cities"?

Uh...Oh...Err...
Hey, look over there! Isn't that that thing you like?

Free Soviets wrote:

Rawrckia wrote:The United States borders Canada and Mexico, both of which have lots of guns for sale, on the black market or otherwise (Mexico actually doesn't allow guns for its citizens iirc but the cartels are extremely powerful right now). It's too easy to get them in and out of the country.

mostly out - the cartels get their weapons in the US. restricting access works. the problem is when the neighbors don't.
we are the bad neighbor here.

Accept their is very little proof that they are getting the majority of their weapons here in the US. After all they are getting weapons that are heavily restricted, such as fully automatic weapons.

Australasia wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Maybe it would.
However, most of the weapons that normally catch the "Assault Weapon" flak, rifles and shotguns, account for pitiful levels of gun violence.

Not, maybe. It would.

Take the Australian example for one.

It's an unrealistic goal. No other country has had this kind of attachment to firearms.

It'd be like taking beer away from Belgians.