The Student Room Group

Kinder eggs are banned in the US...but guns aren't!

..

Scroll to see replies

guns are part of their culture and shown to reduce crime.

look at chicago. gun crime is the highest and guns are illegal there.

the problem is automatic weapons. not even shotguns or handguns are that problematic.
^BF454697BB9C3DC7EBC27BDD69B8D373F46BE96EDA9087F448^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg
Original post by Acend1992
guns are part of their culture and shown to reduce crime.

look at chicago. gun crime is the highest and guns are illegal there.

the problem is automatic weapons. not even shotguns or handguns are that problematic.


Or the effect on homicide rates when guns are banned or restricted, there is either little change or an increase.
Reply 4
Avatar for zezno
zezno
OP
15
Original post by Jammy Duel
^BF454697BB9C3DC7EBC27BDD69B8D373F46BE96EDA9087F448^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg


What a poor poor argument. Tell me why in the UK we don't have as big of a gun problem as you Americans do?
Original post by Acend1992
guns are part of their culture and shown to reduce crime.

look at chicago. gun crime is the highest and guns are illegal there.

the problem is automatic weapons. not even shotguns or handguns are that problematic.


As an advocate of gun-rights, your latter point is wrong. If you want to discuss gun crime, then handguns are, far and away, the big problem. 97% of gun crime is committed with a handgun. People just view semi-automatic weapons (Actual automatic weapons being extremely rare) as the big problem because of their use in mass-shootings. It is a sentiment versus reality situation, the sentiment is that rifles are the issue because of their use in particularly traumatic events, whilst the reality is that handguns are used in most gun crime, such as armed robbery, which is nowhere near as glamorous.

That is not to say that hand guns should be banned - they shouldn't - but it is important to be accurate.
Original post by Acend1992
guns are part of their culture and shown to reduce crime.

look at chicago. gun crime is the highest and guns are illegal there.

the problem is automatic weapons. not even shotguns or handguns are that problematic.


yea..but the more "problematic" the firearm is, the more expensive to buy, meaning the more money manufacturers get, meaning the bigger the defense budget gets, meaning the more bought out and indebted to firearm manufacturers the country is...it's not gona go away until someone with a pair regulates it better or bans its distribution, modifies gun laws since each US State has more or less lenient gun rights, and stops letting them get imported legally and smuggled. But they won't. USA is doomed and I'm not even mad.
Original post by zezno
What a poor poor argument. Tell me why in the UK we don't have as big of a gun problem as you Americans do?


You talk about poor arguments but do not present one at all as to why guns should be controlled.
Reply 8
Avatar for Joep95
Joep95
19
Original post by zezno
What a poor poor argument. Tell me why in the UK we don't have as big of a gun problem as you Americans do?


For a start he isn’t American.

Can you explain to me why being killed by a gun is a bigger problem than being killed by a knife, being strangled to death or any other murder? Same with every other crime why does gun make it worse?

If not a causal link between guns and crime would be nice.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by zezno
What a poor poor argument. Tell me why in the UK we don't have as big of a gun problem as you Americans do?


Clearly not so poor given you're doing exactly what is being suggested in the image and treating gun crime as its own super special thing that has a unique solution to all other problems. Now, as for why homicide rates are so much higher in America than the UK there are a multitude of reasons which ultimately come together to the UK never having had particularly high homicide rates. If we look at recent firearms restrictions in the UK we get the 1968 firearms acts, and the 1997 acts neither of which were followed by decreases in homicide rates, even when we restrict it to gun homicides and in fact firearms related crime is still up on those before the 1997 act. We see a similar story in Australia where homicide rates didn't change after they implemented restrictions in the mid 90s, where a reduction in gun homicides was seen it was offset by other means; the assault weapon ban brought in under Clinton wasn't renewed party because there was no statistical change in homicide rates and in both Ireland and Jamaica homicide rates soared after guns were more strictly controlled.

Even if we look within America itself there isn't even a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates:

The correlation coefficient of that data set is 0.1

And if we look solely at mass shootings the coefficient drops to -0.006 in the following:


The first is DoJ data for 2012 and the second is for 2015 up to September.

If we cross reference these with the guns and ammo list of best states for gun owners we come up with some interesting results, for instance New York is the worst state (DC is worse still but that isn't on our graphs) but has way higher homicide rates than the second best, Vermont despite having about half as many households with guns. New Jersey is barely better than New York but has even higher homicide rates. California, 5th worst state, it climbs higher still. Utah, 4th best for gun owners, one of the lowest homicide rates. New Hampshire, 10th best state, would be better if it weren't for Governor vetoes, pretty lax control, very easy to get a licence, lowest homicide rate in the country and one of the lowest for gun crime.

Now if we go back to looking at the graphs how do you want to explain Delaware, very very low ownership rate yet by my reckoning 8th highest homicide rate (and some of the most restrictive gun laws in America) or Idaho, third highest ownership yet I make that 8th lowest homicide rate (it only comes out as 32nd best state but that's due to poor showings when it comes to use-of-force, in all other areas it does well)?

And you know how I said earlier that DC was excluded, that might be so you can actually read the charts because the homicide rate in DC is all the way up in the 20s and it has absurdly tight to the point of until recently banning carrying guns in public, the second amendment basically didn't exist in DC until after Heller, and even now they try to make life as hard as possible for prospective gun owners.
Reply 10
Avatar for RVNmax
RVNmax
19
Original post by Jammy Duel
^BF454697BB9C3DC7EBC27BDD69B8D373F46BE96EDA9087F448^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg


To me it would seem obvious. 1) Nobody is saying there's nothing wrong with the shooter like the graphic is implying. 2) You are not allowed to carry weapons of any kind so there are restrictions around these items. We have to combat all of those examples. 3) It's impossible to get rid of the others. 4) The tools used in the other 3 do not restrictively exist for killing, i.e. they have other very uses. Whereas, guns are solely used to kill. 5) The gun is the one that makes killing the easiest. It is quite difficult to kill via other methods, hence dramatically reducing the chance of successful homicides of innocent individuals. Moreover, we all have a moment of anger, hence carrying around a gun would dramatically increase the chance of impulse killing.

Original post by joecphillips
For a start he isn’t American.

Can you explain to me why being killed by a gun is a bigger problem than being killed by a knife, being strangled to death or any other murder? Same with every other crime why does gun make it worse?

If not a causal link between guns and crime would be nice.


Another strawman :sigh: :cockup: :judge:
Who said it is? It's just the one that is easiest to solve. You just take 'em away. You can say it is idealistic, and of course it is easier said than done. However, there is a somewhat obvious solution to a massive problem. Have you got a better alternative?

Original post by Jammy Duel
Clearly not so poor given you're doing exactly what is being suggested in the image and treating gun crime as its own super special thing that has a unique solution to all other problems. Now, as for why homicide rates are so much higher in America than the UK there are a multitude of reasons which ultimately come together to the UK never having had particularly high homicide rates. If we look at recent firearms restrictions in the UK we get the 1968 firearms acts, and the 1997 acts neither of which were followed by decreases in homicide rates, even when we restrict it to gun homicides and in fact firearms related crime is still up on those before the 1997 act. We see a similar story in Australia where homicide rates didn't change after they implemented restrictions in the mid 90s, where a reduction in gun homicides was seen it was offset by other means; the assault weapon ban brought in under Clinton wasn't renewed party because there was no statistical change in homicide rates and in both Ireland and Jamaica homicide rates soared after guns were more strictly controlled.

Even if we look within America itself there isn't even a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates:

The correlation coefficient of that data set is 0.1

And if we look solely at mass shootings the coefficient drops to -0.006 in the following:


The first is DoJ data for 2012 and the second is for 2015 up to September.

If we cross reference these with the guns and ammo list of best states for gun owners we come up with some interesting results, for instance New York is the worst state (DC is worse still but that isn't on our graphs) but has way higher homicide rates than the second best, Vermont despite having about half as many households with guns. New Jersey is barely better than New York but has even higher homicide rates. California, 5th worst state, it climbs higher still. Utah, 4th best for gun owners, one of the lowest homicide rates. New Hampshire, 10th best state, would be better if it weren't for Governor vetoes, pretty lax control, very easy to get a licence, lowest homicide rate in the country and one of the lowest for gun crime.

Now if we go back to looking at the graphs how do you want to explain Delaware, very very low ownership rate yet by my reckoning 8th highest homicide rate (and some of the most restrictive gun laws in America) or Idaho, third highest ownership yet I make that 8th lowest homicide rate (it only comes out as 32nd best state but that's due to poor showings when it comes to use-of-force, in all other areas it does well)?

And you know how I said earlier that DC was excluded, that might be so you can actually read the charts because the homicide rate in DC is all the way up in the 20s and it has absurdly tight to the point of until recently banning carrying guns in public, the second amendment basically didn't exist in DC until after Heller, and even now they try to make life as hard as possible for prospective gun owners.


Where is the sense in saying that one hypothesis is not correct due to a lack of correlation and then saying that the opposite is true due by listing the extreme examples that suit your argument?
BTW how would you explain those examples?
I would say that it doesn't make sense to partially restrict guns by a uncontrolled geographical territory. A complete ban in one state when any Tom, **** and Harry can bring a gun in from another state is pointless and would of course play into criminals' hands.
Original post by Jammy Duel
^BF454697BB9C3DC7EBC27BDD69B8D373F46BE96EDA9087F448^pimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg


Honestly, you anti gun control people are clinical morons.

Tell me, could someone kill 50 people and injure over 400 others with a bat, knife or strangling?

There's a mass shooting nearly every other day in America because of their idiotic notion that they need their guns.

Do you know how many mass shooting there have been in Austrialia since they banned guns?
Original post by Jammy Duel
Or the effect on homicide rates when guns are banned or restricted, there is either little change or an increase.


That's bull ****. Compare rates in the UK to the US.

Using a US state with a recent gun restriction as an example of a gun free state is about as logical as using the US as an example of an alcohol free country during the prohibition.

It is a fact that effective restriction on guns would reduce crime levels. But the difficulty is in having an effective restriction.
Tbh the toys in the kinder eggs have been quite dead recently
Original post by zezno
What a poor poor argument. Tell me why in the UK we don't have as big of a gun problem as you Americans do?


Culture. Canada doesn't have as big of an issue with guns and many, many people own guns in Canada. Same with Switzerland.

I should also point out that fully automatic weapons, which -are- illegal in the US, were what was used in the US. Banning guns don't stop shootings any more than banning murder stopped murder.
personally I don't like Kinder eggs so I don't mind.
Reply 16
Avatar for Wōden
Wōden
15
Original post by zezno
What a poor poor argument. Tell me why in the UK we don't have as big of a gun problem as you Americans do?


Comparing the US in it's entirety to the UK is a poor argument. The US is effectively 50 different countries in one, each with wildly varying cultural, ethnic and socio-economic demographics, different rules and regulations etc. Areas such as New Hampshire, Vermont, the Pacific Northwest, for example have high gun ownership rates, liberal gun laws but low gun crime rates, comparable to any European nation. Whilst California, Illinois, Washington DC have much more restrictive gun laws, and higher gun and violent crime rates. It's not as black and white as you may think.

I will also point out the overall gun homicide rate in the US is only around 3.6 per 100,000. Yes, fairly high compared to Europe, but considering we are talking about a country that has more guns than people, 3.6 is incredibly low, and it's absolutely nothing compared to most of it's neighours in South and Central America or the Caribbean. Take Jamaica for example, a country that has had a total ban on civilian gun ownership since the 1960s. Their gun homicide rate is 30.38 per 100,000. Mexico too has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and it's gun homicide rate is almost double that of the US, at 6.36 per 100,000.
59 people died i was in shock when i read that this morning in the newspaper on the way to school.
Original post by xBasedChris


That is not to say that hand guns should be banned - they shouldn't - but it is important to be accurate.


They shouldn't be banned? Because the 8000+ deaths and 50000+ injuries a year from gunshots in the US are insufficient for your taste perhaps?

Compare with Germany, where deaths from gunshots are fewer than deaths from falling objects in the US.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

ps. Many of those gunshot deaths in the US are children.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
Culture. Canada doesn't have as big of an issue with guns and many, many people own guns in Canada. Same with Switzerland.

I should also point out that fully automatic weapons, which -are- illegal in the US, were what was used in the US. Banning guns don't stop shootings any more than banning murder stopped murder.


Automatic weapons are still widely available in the US, through unlicensed gun fairs. In addition, cheap modifiers can be purchased legally to turn weapons into automatics. It's almost as if there's a pro-mass-murder sentiment in the country and a Congress willing and eager to continue to promote mass murder.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you