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

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.

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.]/quote]

You're saying it would be easy to get rid of over 300m guns? How many illegal firearms are there still in the UK and we never had particularly many, some estimates put it at half a million.

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.

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?

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.

Pretty superficial argument. There are still guns permitted in the most restrictive states, and those restrictive states have no border controls with completely lax states. Your whole argument is that there is not an absolute correlation across each grade of regulation with gun safety. But it does not address the actual point that fundamental regulation of guns across the US as a whole, it is contended, would make the place safer. Until one of the points in your graph is regulated to that extent, the graph is useless.

I'll take DC, right on the far left of the graph and crushing everything else right down, or one of the many countries which banned guns and did not see any statistically significant reductions in homicide rates.

You can show any other stats which illustrate your point. However, the two graphs you showed were not illustrative of anything relevant to the argument.

Another strawman
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?

Not this one?

Better than your completely irrelevant one, yeah.

For that to be relevant, you would have to compare two countries which are culturally and socio-economically similar. USA and St Kitts are not too similar, whereas UK and the US are. We know which country has the lower incidence of gun homicide out of those two.

Better than your completely irrelevant one, yeah.

For that to be relevant, you would have to compare two countries which are culturally and socio-economically similar. USA and St Kitts are not too similar, whereas UK and the US are. We know which country has the lower incidence of gun homicide out of those two.

Possession of a gun shouldn't in anyway be considered a right. The police are there to protect you in situations so they should be the only ones able to have a gun in their possession. I'm sorry but considering how easily people can have access to guns isn't right, there's a reason school shooting for example is such a big deal in America because kids can find ways to possess a gun. The fact that more people die because toddlers and young children somehow are left alone with a gun nearby than by a terrorist attack in the US should be looked into and
dealt with immediately.

You are more likely to die skydiving is that a problem that should be looked into and dealt with immediately?

We also know that homicide rates increased in the uk when we banned handguns, so let’s say that happens in the USA (it has happened in other countries as well) why is banning guns so important that the homicide rate should be increased?