Kinder eggs are banned in the US...but guns aren't!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Jammy Duel
Don't forget drinking and smoking, far bigger killers, prohibition has to be brought back (it was so successful last time) and tobacco must be outlawed, and let's not forget suicide, if we ban that people will definitely stop killing themselves and tens of thousands will live longer. Heart disease is also a massive killer, about a quarter of deaths IIRC so ban fast food and let's save hundreds of thousands!
So how about legalising Heroin? Yay or nay?
You're full of **** Jammy, you don't actually believe what you're saying, it's clear as day.
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
Handguns became illegal in 1997. In 1980 the number of homicides was 620 a year, in 1990 it was 669, and in 2000 it was 850. It went all the way up to 1,047 in 2002/03 and dropped down to 639 by 2010/11. There have been a few sub-500 years, and now it's in the 500-600 range.
Homicides have gone down.
Homicides have gone down.
Let's tag a couple of graphs together. First we will take the long term trend covering the whole of the 20th century
And another looking at just the last half century
Oops, it's still just sitting around its long term mean.
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
Handguns became illegal in 1997. In 1980 the number of homicides was 620 a year, in 1990 it was 669, and in 2000 it was 850. It went all the way up to 1,047 in 2002/03 and dropped down to 639 by 2010/11. There have been a few sub-500 years, and now it's in the 500-600 range.
Homicides have gone down.
Homicides have gone down.
Cherry picking your stats it seems, jammy has posted the graph.
One question what should be asked is did something in 02/03 happen that might have caused the decline back down around the preban rate? and the answer to that is more police.
Original post by joecphillips
Cherry picking your stats it seems, jammy has posted the graph.
One question what should be asked is did something in 02/03 happen that might have caused the decline back down around the preban rate? and the answer to that is more police.
One question what should be asked is did something in 02/03 happen that might have caused the decline back down around the preban rate? and the answer to that is more police.
Showing you the stats by decade is hardly cherry-picking. The homicide rate went from 739/748 from 1997 to 750 for 1998 (it fluctuates about 70 each year prior), 766 for 1999 and then 850 in 2000. The spike in homicide rates occurred from 1999 to 2000. Unless the 1997 ban came into force in 2000, your argument is incorrect.
I'm sorry.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by joecphillips
Cherry picking your stats it seems, jammy has posted the graph.
One question what should be asked is did something in 02/03 happen that might have caused the decline back down around the preban rate? and the answer to that is more police.
One question what should be asked is did something in 02/03 happen that might have caused the decline back down around the preban rate? and the answer to that is more police.
I've no desire to get involved in this debate but I have to correct your ignorance.
The fall after 02/03 was not down to more police. What happened in 02/03 was the Harold Shipman murders were recorded, which produced a huge artificial spike in the stats.
Do people really think that British people / foreigners telling Americans to give up their guns is going to help?
The killer had an automatic rifle you can't say that is for self defence
They need to stop people being able to get weapons like this. Handguns, fine.
Sure you'll get the odd shooting, but at the end of the day their deaths only make up a minuscule percent of ways people are killed.
The killer had an automatic rifle you can't say that is for self defence
They need to stop people being able to get weapons like this. Handguns, fine.
Sure you'll get the odd shooting, but at the end of the day their deaths only make up a minuscule percent of ways people are killed.
Original post by joecphillips
You are more likely to die skydiving is that a problem that should be looked into and dealt with immediately?
Skydiving is a choice. People choose to be put in that situation.No one asks to be shot to death
Original post by 27FT
Skydiving is a choice. People choose to be put in that situation.No one asks to be shot to death
It's bizarre that one of the most vocal anti drug legalisation posters here is also one of the most vocal in arguing for the freedom to possess guns, wish someone could explain it, so confused it makes me head hurt.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
Showing you the stats by decade is hardly cherry-picking. The homicide rate went from 739/748 from 1997 to 750 for 1998 (it fluctuates about 70 each year prior), 766 for 1999 and then 850 in 2000. The spike in homicide rates occurred from 1999 to 2000. Unless the 1997 ban came into force in 2000, your argument is incorrect.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Except you ignore the data from before then, which is very common when talking about the UK gun bans, they very often have data starting in the late 80s/early 90s because going back further breaks down the argument, especially if talking about firearms crime more generally
Original post by Quantex
I've no desire to get involved in this debate but I have to correct your ignorance.
The fall after 02/03 was not down to more police. What happened in 02/03 was the Harold Shipman murders were recorded, which produced a huge artificial spike in the stats.
The fall after 02/03 was not down to more police. What happened in 02/03 was the Harold Shipman murders were recorded, which produced a huge artificial spike in the stats.
Right, so you get a lot in 2022/03, last I checked homicide stats look at date of conviction which means you can't use that to talk about post 02/03 vs pre 02/03. For decades before Shipman there was a steady increase in homicides, fairly significant in the years immediately before but after Shipman (when the effect on increased policing filtered through to the crime stats) the figure comes back down.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Except you ignore the data from before then, which is very common when talking about the UK gun bans, they very often have data starting in the late 80s/early 90s because going back further breaks down the argument, especially if talking about firearms crime more generally
My first post, the one in which I was cherry-picking according to your pal, cited the 1980 homicide rate. I am not sure how you can accuse me of not paying attention to the data prior to the late 1980s.
For the sake of completeness, have the homicide rates from 1950 onwards.
1950 346
1960 282
1970 393
1980 620
1990 669
2000 850
2010 639
I am not sure what makes you think that homicides only became engorged in the latter half of the 20th century. The homicide rate has been "high" since 1980. In fact earlier it starter earlier than that; 1973 it was 465 and in 1974 it went to 600. Your argument really has no merit. Yet another person on TSR not having a clue what they're talking about.
Original post by AlliedCrimes
Do people really think that British people / foreigners telling Americans to give up their guns is going to help?
The killer had an automatic rifle you can't say that is for self defence
They need to stop people being able to get weapons like this. Handguns, fine.
Sure you'll get the odd shooting, but at the end of the day their deaths only make up a minuscule percent of ways people are killed.
The killer had an automatic rifle you can't say that is for self defence
They need to stop people being able to get weapons like this. Handguns, fine.
Sure you'll get the odd shooting, but at the end of the day their deaths only make up a minuscule percent of ways people are killed.
Handguns are used in more shootings than rifles and automatic weapons are pretty much illegal
Original post by Jammy Duel
I'll give you 58 killed and 434 killed with a vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack
I'll give you over 100 with a gun despite very heavy restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
Depending on what constitutes a mass shooting there have been between about 3 and 6 with the rate of mass killings not having decreased, same goes for the UK where mass killings are actually up on pre ban, and if we remove terrorism we didn't really have mass killings before the ban and we haven't really had them since yet again we're not seeing the changes the gun control lobby tell you there will be.
I'll give you over 100 with a gun despite very heavy restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
Depending on what constitutes a mass shooting there have been between about 3 and 6 with the rate of mass killings not having decreased, same goes for the UK where mass killings are actually up on pre ban, and if we remove terrorism we didn't really have mass killings before the ban and we haven't really had them since yet again we're not seeing the changes the gun control lobby tell you there will be.
So... no examples from your picture? Thought not. Instead, out come the typically absurd analogies.
Firstly, vehicles can't be banned because they primarily serve another purpose. They do however have regulations in place to try and avoid this sort of thing.
Then you use use a collectively organised Terrorist attack where the attackers reportedly bought firearms legally from Slovakia... good one.
As for Australia, you claim the rate of "mass killings" hasn't went down but can you say the same for number of casualties? No, you can't. Would you rather be caught up in a terror incident/deranged lone wolf attach involving knives, bats or guns? Answer truthfully now...
As for us not really having mass killings maybe you should brush up on your history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
A massacre which resulted in laws greatly restricting private ownership of firearms which led to... well, not really had any since didn't you say?
Non-eddible items inside food are a hidden danger that kids could easily miss. Guns are an obvious danger that people should know to be responsible with.
In reality, even a kid would have to be pretty stupid to eat the toy in a kinder egg (too big to accidentally swallow and obviously not food) and people aren't as smart with guns as you would like to think. But the basic premise kinda makes sense. Guns also theoretically serve a purpose and aren't dangerous unless in the wrong hands. Problem is those wrong hands are getting them way too easily and the purpose could probably be helped with other methods that don't lead to accidental shootings.
With Kinder egg it's expected that the consumer is stupid cos they are kids. For some reason though the gun consumers aren't thought to be idiots, despite people leaving them where kids can reach them, using them in petty disputes etc. Sure guns in themselves aren't a danger, but nor are little toys. Both can become dangerous when paired with a child or an idiot though.
I personally (bare in mind I'm just a random person- not an expert) think that adding guns or dangerous items into a situation is just an accident waiting to happen. People will always make mistakes and some people will always be cruel. You can't get rid of that so why put guns into that environment? That said, I could see things being fine if there was just a lot more focus put into who can access guns and where they can be taken. If you had to have a background check, undergo gun training, watch videos of idiots being hurt by guns and weren't allowed guns in public places then I could see there might me potential.
Side note: Something people may not know is that you are actually allowed guns in the UK with very little formalities. Only air rifles though (or 'toy' guns like BB or paint guns). That still allows for land owners getting rid of vermin, hobby shooting and even protecting you home, but the potential for serious harm in accidents or deliberate harm by cruel people is far less than with 'real' guns.
In reality, even a kid would have to be pretty stupid to eat the toy in a kinder egg (too big to accidentally swallow and obviously not food) and people aren't as smart with guns as you would like to think. But the basic premise kinda makes sense. Guns also theoretically serve a purpose and aren't dangerous unless in the wrong hands. Problem is those wrong hands are getting them way too easily and the purpose could probably be helped with other methods that don't lead to accidental shootings.
With Kinder egg it's expected that the consumer is stupid cos they are kids. For some reason though the gun consumers aren't thought to be idiots, despite people leaving them where kids can reach them, using them in petty disputes etc. Sure guns in themselves aren't a danger, but nor are little toys. Both can become dangerous when paired with a child or an idiot though.
I personally (bare in mind I'm just a random person- not an expert) think that adding guns or dangerous items into a situation is just an accident waiting to happen. People will always make mistakes and some people will always be cruel. You can't get rid of that so why put guns into that environment? That said, I could see things being fine if there was just a lot more focus put into who can access guns and where they can be taken. If you had to have a background check, undergo gun training, watch videos of idiots being hurt by guns and weren't allowed guns in public places then I could see there might me potential.
Side note: Something people may not know is that you are actually allowed guns in the UK with very little formalities. Only air rifles though (or 'toy' guns like BB or paint guns). That still allows for land owners getting rid of vermin, hobby shooting and even protecting you home, but the potential for serious harm in accidents or deliberate harm by cruel people is far less than with 'real' guns.
[QUOTE="Duel;74002166" Jammy="Jammy"]
Homicides by firearm rate per 100,000 population? You've been had mate. Obviously, if there are more firearms then the firearms are distributed more to people who wouldn't shoot anyone except for self defence but if the firearms are hard to get then those who get them often want to kill people.
This article shows the clear cut evidence that gun ownership leads to more homicides in developed countries(excluding South Africa) countries similar to the USA.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-correlation-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-rate-55467
There is also another major reason for homicides and crime in general large inequality and USA has a large GINI coefficient 41.1(2013) vs UK 31.6(2014). Right wingers like to forget this because it shows that in order to keep people save you have to have a lot of wealth redistribution.
https://extranewsfeed.com/this-one-number-explains-americas-violence-problem-700d95917ab8
Original post by RVNmax
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.
I think you will find that a lack of evidence that gun control works is sufficient to suggest it doesn't work so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, it's also ironic that you're making the case against gun control yourself, of course it's pointless banning guns from the sane, law abiding citizen when the criminal can get them just fine, there are over a million shotguns legally owned in England and Wales, the only time those are problems are when stolen
I'll give you 58 killed and 434 killed with a vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack
I'll give you over 100 with a gun despite very heavy restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
Depending on what constitutes a mass shooting there have been between about 3 and 6 with the rate of mass killings not having decreased, same goes for the UK where mass killings are actually up on pre ban, and if we remove terrorism we didn't really have mass killings before the ban and we haven't really had them since yet again we're not seeing the changes the gun control lobby tell you there will be.
And yet again, if an effective restriction on guns reduces crime levels then why is it not observable anywhere else in the world, is it that places like the UK, Australia, and Ireland did not have effective restrictions or is it that the argument is unsound.
And then to all of you you get a graph like this which doesn't compare the nice and conforming UK and US but scores of countries and shows countries with high ownership rates but low homicide rates (and similarly low ownership high homicide)
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.
I think you will find that a lack of evidence that gun control works is sufficient to suggest it doesn't work so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, it's also ironic that you're making the case against gun control yourself, of course it's pointless banning guns from the sane, law abiding citizen when the criminal can get them just fine, there are over a million shotguns legally owned in England and Wales, the only time those are problems are when stolen
I'll give you 58 killed and 434 killed with a vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack
I'll give you over 100 with a gun despite very heavy restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
Depending on what constitutes a mass shooting there have been between about 3 and 6 with the rate of mass killings not having decreased, same goes for the UK where mass killings are actually up on pre ban, and if we remove terrorism we didn't really have mass killings before the ban and we haven't really had them since yet again we're not seeing the changes the gun control lobby tell you there will be.
And yet again, if an effective restriction on guns reduces crime levels then why is it not observable anywhere else in the world, is it that places like the UK, Australia, and Ireland did not have effective restrictions or is it that the argument is unsound.
And then to all of you you get a graph like this which doesn't compare the nice and conforming UK and US but scores of countries and shows countries with high ownership rates but low homicide rates (and similarly low ownership high homicide)
Homicides by firearm rate per 100,000 population? You've been had mate. Obviously, if there are more firearms then the firearms are distributed more to people who wouldn't shoot anyone except for self defence but if the firearms are hard to get then those who get them often want to kill people.
This article shows the clear cut evidence that gun ownership leads to more homicides in developed countries(excluding South Africa) countries similar to the USA.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-correlation-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-rate-55467
There is also another major reason for homicides and crime in general large inequality and USA has a large GINI coefficient 41.1(2013) vs UK 31.6(2014). Right wingers like to forget this because it shows that in order to keep people save you have to have a lot of wealth redistribution.
https://extranewsfeed.com/this-one-number-explains-americas-violence-problem-700d95917ab8
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by the beer
It's bizarre that one of the most vocal anti drug legalisation posters here is also one of the most vocal in arguing for the freedom to possess guns, wish someone could explain it, so confused it makes me head hurt.
That is kind of hypocritical. For hardcore drugs I understand but if people choose to smoke weed it's their choice and they're not harming anyone else. The amount of people who die from gun violence around the world is horribly high and no one should have their lives taken away like that. How gun right supporters fail to see that the people who DIE or get seriously injured by gun violence are people and not just irrelevant statistics is sickening. No sane person would go and buy a gun in any case, I'd never have a gun in my possession, majority of gun owners are crazies in any case.
weird right
but then thats america in a nutshell
but then thats america in a nutshell
Original post by Jammy Duel
You're presumably aware that, ad absurdum, this same rhetoric could be applied to the ownership of personal nukes.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
