Toddlers kill more Americans in the US than jihadists.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Doones

Original post by joecphillips

Banning guns doesn't reduce the murder rate it didn't in the uk, Ireland or Australia why would it work in the USA?

Wut?

USA murder rate per 100,000: 3.9
Australia: 1.0
UK: 0.9
Ireland: 1.1

Edit to add

http://darwincatholic.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/is-us-gun-ownership-causing-wave-of-gun.html

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 21

That'sGreat

So cancer kills millions every year, and Hitler kiKlee 6 million Jews. Does that mean we should only focus on stopping cancer and letting Hitler carry on? No. If it causes atleast one death and is likely to see a surge in murders and attacks, then stop it

Reply 22

MaxHeather

Original post by She-Ra

I think America really needs to focus on reviewing and managing it's gun laws.....

Rather than Trump's ban on immigration from 7 Muslim countries.

Discuss.

:cookie:

Hold on, so you're saying that the Orlando night club shooting resulted in only 2 fatalities? Also, what Official report uses language such as "being hit by a bus" - it would be "motor related deaths" if this document was legitimate. What is actually happening is that people are taking the opportunity to try and slander Trump because they disagree with him, and the public attitude is similar.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 23

QE2

Original post by joecphillips

Do you think banning guns reduces the murder rate?

It is clear that, when comparing like societies, making guns harder to acquire reduces the number of homicide by firearm. And the number of suicide by fairearm. And the number of accidental death by firearm.

Also, a US study showed that you were around four times more likely to die by shooting if you kept a gun in the house than if you didn't.

Still, there will always be some who insist that virtually uncontrolled access to guns has no effect on the rate of death by firearms. These people are usually gun owners (or people who would like to own a gun).

Reply 24

She-Ra

Universities Forum Helper

Original post by MaxHeather

This was published before the Orlando attacks. You're correct, the number should be higher because of that.

Even so I think the point here is that the amount of gun attacks is significantly higher.

Reply 25

Joep95

Original post by jneill

Wut?

USA murder rate per 100,000: 3.9
Australia: 1.0
UK: 0.9
Ireland: 1.1

Very good comparing across nations except that is not what I was talking about, look at what happened when the gun ban came into place the murder rate didn't go down.

Ireland's murder rate was below 0.4 then they banned guns because of a spike in murders one year and it has only been below 0.4 1 year since the ban in 1972

Britain banned guns in 1997and the murder rate was below 1.2 but from 98 it increased every year until 03 peaking at 1.8 it decreased after there was a lot more police hired.

1995 for Australia and the murder rate stayed the same for around 7/8 years

Reply 26

Doones

Original post by joecphillips

See my edit - and the referenced article.

Reply 27

Joep95

Original post by QE2

That's not the question I asked.

Does banning guns reduce the homocide rate? Is it somehow worse to be killed by a gun rather than a knife?

Reply 28

Joep95

Original post by jneill

See my edit - and the referenced article.

So gun deaths are falling in America already.

Also it is irrelevant to my point I am talking about the effects of overall homocide if you remove 1 homocide caused by a gun but create 2 with a knife is that better?

Reply 29

QE2

Original post by joecphillips

Banning guns doesn't reduce the murder rate it didn't in the uk, Ireland or Australia why would it work in the USA?

The UK has had strict firearms controls since the mid 19th century, so fine-tuning legistation is not going to have a marked effect (although there have been no mass shootings with handguns since Dunblane - so it worked in that respect).

The firearms deaths in Australia fell considerably after regislation following the Port Arthur massacre.

What you would expect to see when removing all legally held guns would be a rapid drop to a level that would remain fairly constant. Criminals will always use firearms, and this will inevitably lead to deaths, but the rate of death in the general population, and especially the random mass shootings, will fall. This is why the rate of firearm homicide in similar societies that have strict gun control is lower than in those similar societies without control.
To contest this is to deny reality.

Reply 30

Joep95

Original post by QE2

Once again I'm not talking about firearms homocide I'm talking overall homocide if you replace 1 firearm related homocide with 2 knife related homocide is that an improvement?

Or is being killed with a gun somehow worse?

Reply 31

Doones

Original post by joecphillips

Gun deaths aren't falling. The blue line fell until 2000 but has been flat since.

And to your other point: has that happened? It seems not:

Reply 32

Nerry

white americans have actually killed more than muslims

Reply 33

Joep95

Original post by jneill

Gun deaths aren't falling. The blue line fell until 2000 but has been flat since.

And to your other point: has that happened? It seems not:

Is it just handguns you want to be banned and not guns like an AR15's?

The homocide rate increased here and Ireland and for a time in Australia so if gun homocides were reduced some other type of homocide has to have increased.

Not doubled would you prefer me to say if you stop 100 gun homocides but it leads to 101 other types is that an improvement?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 34

QE2

Original post by joecphillips

That's not the question I asked.

Does banning guns reduce the homocide rate? Is it somehow worse to be killed by a gun rather than a knife?

But your question is flawed because you are looking at the rate pre and post a particular piece of legislation, not pre and post general control.
The UK has had strict gun controls since the 19th century.
Ireland has had strict gun control since 1925.
You are citing pieces of legislation enacted to close perceived loopholes in existing legislation, which applied in practice to very few people.

In the US, pretty much any adult can still buy a range of firearms with little to no control.
You must compare like with like, not apples and oranges.

The argument is not to "ban guns" but to introduce controls like those in the UK. This would undoubtedly see a reduction in the rate of firearm homicide, and thus a reduction in the overall rate.
Or are you claiming that Americans are culturally, or genetically, four times more inclined to murder than Brits, Irish and Aussies, and that in the presence of strict gun controls there would be a fourfold increase in stabbings, stranglings, poisonings, etc?
One of the reasons that guns are so popular for killing people is that it is quick, involves little to no effort, and it can be done from a distance. It's why armies prefer them over swords, clubs, etc.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 35

TaintedLight

Original post by MaxHeather

The orlando shooter was a son of an immigrant who was a naturalized American. His murder would probably increase the "All Islamic...." category.

What is actually happening is a "president" who doesn't know how to govern a country.

Reply 36

MaxHeather

Original post by TaintedLight

So you're saying that Hillary Clinton, who is a puppet for the Democrats, would have been a better choice?

Reply 37

QE2

Original post by joecphillips

You seem to be under the misapprehension that every US murder using firearms whould still have been committed by some other means if the gun had not been available.
The figures simply don't support this. It is clear that the overall homicide rate in countries with strict gun controls tend to be lower than in countries with uncontrolled gun access.

To use the countries you cited in your argument, the three countries with gun contro have intentional homicide rates of about 1/100,000. The USA has a rate four times as high.